Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buena Vista Pumping Plant

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to California Aqueduct. History will remain, so anyone interested in doing a merge will be able to do so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buena Vista Pumping Plant

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced since 2018 with no improvement. This plant does not appear to be notable as a separate entity to the California State Water Project, with no in-depth coverage of the plant itself. The only easily accessible thing I could find that comes close is this page on UC Davis' website, but it's not even two paragraphs. Newspapers.com turned up WP:ROTM coverage only. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 01:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 01:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I know that "looks big" is not a basis for keeping an article. Just the same, I'll note that on Google Earth, this thing is big -- about 200' high.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This plant appears in the table at California State Water Project#Pump plants. If no reliable sources turn up to prove notability, that's a good redirect target. Note that only 3 of the other 17 stations have articles.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ~~merge~~ to California State Water Project#Pump plants per my comments above.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)}<

Merge as recommended by A. B. seems like the best option, not much SIGCOV out there outside of a couple primary sources. This article on proquest is the best I found and could help add a line or two of context to the destination section. [1] —siro χ o 03:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A. B., are you sure about this Merge target? Because it's just a list. I don't see how any other information could be incorporated here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Facepalm) Liz -you're right. Sorry. Redirect.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Following other links on that page, maybe California Aqueduct could be a better merge target. (or California State Water Project § California Aqueduct)? —siro χ o 16:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to settle on one Merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think redirecting to California State Water Project#Pump plants makes sense since it presents information on the plant itself in a more accessible way. If people are interested, it's just one more click to the California Aqueduct for details on the broader project. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 11:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to California State Water Project#Pump plants seems the most appropriate in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 06:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to California State Water Project#Pump plants, context makes sense. Bestagon ⬡ 02:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean redirect? There's so little information in the article as-is that I'm not sure what could be ported over to the CSWP article. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 11:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please read my comment. It makes no sense to Merge to California State Water Project#Pump plants as this section is just a list. How would you Merge article content to a list? Please do not just rubber stamp what other editors have suggested and look at the possible target articles yourself. I'm giving this discussion another relist to see if editors can come up with a realistic suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: https://www.topozone.com/california/kern-ca/locale/buena-vista-pumping-plant/, http://wikimapia.org/11413011/Buena-Vista-Pumping-Plant,https://water.ca.gov/Programs/State-Water-Project/SWP-Facilities/San-Joaquin, https://research.engineering.ucdavis.edu/gpa/excavations/buena-vista-excavation/ All our passing mentions or include very little detail. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
California Department of Water Resources	~ Partially	Yes	No	✘ No
Wikimapia	Yes	No	No	✘ No
Topozone	Yes	Yes	No	✘ No
UC Davis Civil & Environmental Engineering	Yes	Yes	~ Partially	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. The way the soil shifted during construction is interesting, and so is the seismic study before construction. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @PaulGamerBoy360, Bestagon, Indefensible, Siroxo, and A. B.: Pinging participants to see if we can agree - Per my comment above, I think redirecting (not merging) to California State Water Project#Pump plants makes the most sense. @Eastmain: I went ahead and redid the source table with the sources you added but I do not think there's enough there for GNG.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Water.ca.gov	State government		~	✘ No
Wikimapia		Open wiki		✘ No
Topozone			Database entry	✘ No
Tessa		~ No fact-checking, just a photo		✘ No
Final Design Report	Published by the state government		Unaccessible in full via Google Books	✘ No
Final Geologic Report	Published by the state government		Unaccessible in full via Google Books	? Unknown
Seismicity Near	Published by the state government		Unaccessible in full via Google Books	✘ No
Office Report	Published by the state government		Unaccessible in full via Google Books	✘ No
Analysis of Soil			Article is not about the plant but is about the soil more broadly	✘ No
Buena Vista Excavation			~ Short article only about a very small aspect of the plant	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 11:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think we should redirect the page, we don't have sufficient Independent RS with in Depth Coverage. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I recommend California Aqueduct as an ideal merge target. It already has the most coverage of this topic outside the current article, and could fit a few more sentences. —siro χ o 16:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to California Aqueduct per Siroxo. California State Water Project#Pump plants is simply a list of pump plants, whereas the Aqueduct article has some prose for context. Also, thank you to TON for the source analysis - I agree that it is accurate and shows that the GNG has not been met. Toadspike (talk) 09:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Changing my recommendation to a REDIRECT to California Aqueduct per others! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 11:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.