Talk:El Sobrante, Contra Costa County, California

message: Fizbin, I don't understand your reverting Judy Malloy's inclusion of her own name. I don't see it as simply a vanity entry due to her pioneering achievements in arts and science. How would these achievements count less than a comic book artist? Binksternet 13:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First and foremost, it is a vanity entry because she has been adding the link herself. Also, the contributions to the underground comics movements by artist Joel Beck are a reflection upon the city because he spent his formative years in the town. Judy Malloy may live in El Sobrante NOW. But she does not appear to be FROM El Sobrante. People move all the time. It might be appropriate to list her current location on her own page, but it does not seem appropriate to list it here.Theplanetsaturn 21:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While TheplanetSaturn was posting the above I was editing the entry to get rid of the linkspam. It is still very marginal in my opinion.--Fizbin 21:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Judy Malloy now has an article establishing her notability. I'm putting her in as a resident. Binksternet (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Because you created one today. Regardless, while her location may be relevant enough to list in her own talk page, you have yet to give reason as to why her residence is relevant to the El Sobrante article. People move all the time. She did not originate in El Sobrante or spend her formative years in El Sobrante or even live in El Sobrante when her notability was established. So how is her residency relevant to El Sobrante and the El Sobrante article? I asked you this a year ago and you never answered. In the meantime, the best consensus we have on this issue is against inclusion. The only one pushing for inclusion is you.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's been no call for consensus, we're not voting here, we're making an encyclopedic entry. Your argument about Malloy's relevance to El Sobrante falls down when examining the single other person listed, Joel Beck, who similarly did little for El Sobrante and in fact moved around, making his mark in Berkeley. Both Beck and Malloy need only to have lived in El Sobrante to gain mention here, there's no need to establish their fame in relation to how they have contributed to the benefit or detriment of where they live. Oh, and Malloy has created all of her most recent works while living in El Sobrante, so now she's even satisfied your unnecessary requirement. Malloy is going back into the article. Binksternet (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect you're not even reading my posts properly. Beck grew up in El Sobrante. He spent his formative years in the town, and was shaped by the culture. Therefore his artistic endeavors are a reflection of the town. I've already stated this once before. None of this applies to Malloy. People move all the time. According to the entry you created on the woman, Malloy has lived in many places. Her currently living in El Sobrante is not enough to warrant mention. Once again, I am removing her.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't imagine why you would conclude I'm not comprehending your posts... You've stated repeatedly that Beck was shaped by El Sobrante culture. I'm eliminating this as a prerequisite for inclusion in the article as it is not based on a valid source. Your avowal of Beck's foundational El Sobrante experience is original research unless you can show a critical review or scholarly examination of Beck that says so. To me, the listing of musicians and Beck under the heading Popular culture is simply a list; a list of people related to El Sobrante in some fashion. Only Claypool mentions El Sobrante explicitly in his art. None of the others have... Did Fogarty change El Sobrante by living there for a time? Did El Sobrante change him? Do we know if El Sobrante crept into his lyric? We don't. We put Fogarty in because he lived there. That's enough for Malloy. Binksternet (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A fair point. Fogarty is removed. As for your argument that someone who grows up in a town, goes to school in a town, and subsequently being influenced by culture of the environment as being original research, that is simply absurd. A native of a community achieving artistic notoriety has been long held in society as a reflection of said community. Nothing new there. Malloy has lived in multiple locations. She may move again tomorrow. Her current location may be relevant for her own page, but it is not relevant to the El Sobrante page. The consensus was against you when you vanished from this discussion. If you want to include it, seek a third party opinion.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only editors who have taken action on this issue have been you, me and Fizbin, who last checked in nearly a year ago. No recent consensus has been reached; Fizbin characterized the entry as "linkspam" at that time and hasn't weighed in again now that Judy Malloy's notability has been established via her getting her own wiki article. Your deletion of Fogerty is an interesting move... If that's the direction you want to go, then only Claypool and Kiffmeyer would be left under the heading. They are the only ones who have included El Sobrante in their art. As far as somebody's art being influenced by where they grew up, there are artists that is true for, and artists it is not true for. It's not automatic. If you want to take the position that El Sobrante influenced Joel Beck, you must find a citation for it. Check out WP:OR for particulars. Binksternet (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So is that how it works in your mind? A consensus forms against you, you wait a year and then re-add the disputed information without discussion, then dismiss the previous consensus that you are ignoring as no longer being relevant? That is not a way to engender healthy discussion. As for Malloy's article, it has all of one editor working on it. That's you. Creation of an article alone is not sufficient in proving notability for inclusion. Also, I said nothing about the inclusion of the area in the art. I clearly stated that it should be limited to artists who spent their formative years in the region. Note that this includes every artist currently listed. I never once said anything about including information about the region in their work. As for the rest, again a native of a community achieving artistic notoriety has been long held in society as a reflection of said community. So much so that the Onion even parodied the concept recently. I do not need to cite something of that nature. Where a person is from holds much more weight in society than where a person has recently moved. I would have no problem with Malloy being mentioned in the article of her hometown. But should she also be listed in Oakland and everywhere else she lived? How is where she lives now relevant? How is her residency relevant to the El Sobrante article?Theplanetsaturn (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The section we are talking about is entitled "Popular culture", not "People who grew up in El Sobrante". People who grow up in a place don't necessarily have that place as an influence. You appear unable to distance yourself from the kind of common sense assumption which would normally be valid in conversation and in daily life but which is classified here on Wikipedia as original research. The assumed connection must be proven here. Binksternet (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How many times have I asked you to seek a new consensus before re-adding the information? The most recent consensus stands against inclusion. You continually circumventing this discussion in an effort to forward your own beliefs of what should be included is nothing but inflammatory. Furthermore, you seem to have misunderstood how Wikipedia policy operates. Not everything must be sourced in the manner you suggest. If it were, no article would ever be able to move forward. Common sense remains common sense, and Wikipedia guidelines were not created to interfere with obvious common sense. Regardless, I'll be deleting the information soon. You're creating an edit war by not seeking out additional opinions as requested. All you have to do is abide by proper channels. Seek out third part opinions to support inclusion. The most recent consensus stands solidly against you, and no amount of blustering is going to change this.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One editor arguing with another editor is no consensus. Fizbin's contribution last year doesn't apply to what is going on now. I don't need your approval to continue to build the article in normal Wikipedia ways. Today, I brought in a reference in for a five-week-old fact tag and I've copyedited the article for flow and grammar. I'm improving the article. You've done what? Deleted the sort of content normally accepted into articles about places. This might be the time to re-read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Binksternet (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not some random contribution last year. It was a dialog between three editors, you an I being two of them. You abandoned the discussion when the consensus was against you, and now stating that enough time has passed that you no longer must abide by the majority opinion on the exact same topic is simply absurd. You're persnal attacks are noted and dismissed as insignificant. You will please note that I have not reverted or challeneged any of your other contributions to the article, so please de-twist your panties. In the meantime, please go through proper channels for inclusion without continually re-adding information that has been challenged. All you are doing is inciting an edit war.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

text: The fizbin has spoken: the addition of Judy Malloy is lame, and her page is essentially a vanity page.--Fizbin (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The addition of Judy Malloy is lame? That's your argument? What a scholarly rebuttal. As far as being a vanity page, if her article survives Afd, its validity is beyond your judgment. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, seek out a third party opinion of some kind if you wish to retain the information.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If your position on this issue is weak enough to be swayed by me bringing in enough third party votes to outnumber you and Fizbin, why should I have to bring in any at all? There's no good reason to keep a notable resident off the list of notable residents, so back she goes. Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think my position on it is weak at all. Suggesting a third party opinion is a better option than an edit war, and is recommended by Wikipedia guidelines. Obviously, I feel my position is correct. You feel your position is correct as well. And Fizbin no doubt feels that their opinion is correct. So a neutral party is required. As the minority opinion here, you should seek one out rather than just engage in inflammatory reversions.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judy Malloy is not a vanity entry 

message: In southern California, there is a dump site, aprox 3 square miles in area, backed by a wilderness area. This is called El Sobrante.
El Sobrante Landfill
10910 Dawson Canyon Rd
Corona, CA 92883
8.52 miles from Corona, CA 92879
(951) 277-1740  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.65.83 (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate El Sobrante 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on El Sobrante, California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Moved. Clear reasoning to disambiguate from another title, neither of which are a primary target. Dab created at base name. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: El Sobrante, California →  – There is another El Sobrante in California: El Sobrante, Riverside County, California. Neither seems to be significantly more notable than the other, so both titles should include the county name. El Sobrante, California should be turned into a disambiguation page. Rublov (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 8 December 2021