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 merge to Ocean Beach, San Francisco, California. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Beach Public Policy[edit]

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

Non-notable topic, full of original research and items with limited relationships to each other. What little (if any) of this is actually encyclopedic, belongs in the actual article Ocean Beach, San Francisco, California. Orange Mike | Talk 01:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is being developed and already has 13 references. Public planning for the environmental protection of Ocean Beach is an important and notable issue in San Francisco. In addition, "this article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of San Francisco supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the Spring 2011 term." It would be a negative to this important educational outreach program to delete this article at this time. Disclosure: I am a volunteer with the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and participated in a presentation to the class that is working on this and other public policy articles. Cullen328 (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nom's reasoning is sound. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking widespread notability. I can certainly imagine a paragraph about this topic in a more general article about the area or maybe about related issues. Per nom, seems like it's reeeeeally stretching to find substantial independent coverage on the specific topic itself rather than editors' synthesis to make articles on the issues related to it seem related enough to support the notability of this specific topic. I could envision several more general "public policy and the environment" articles that could therefore draw articles on multiple implementations and higher-level relationships, but the focus here (this policy-set for this location) doesn't seem like it can stand as its own article. AfD is a week long, so hopefully the students can dig up some broader refs that still mention this actual location/policy to illustrate notability, and I'd happily re-evaluate. DMacks (talk) 02:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that some of the sections in this article are problematic. The section "Access and Connectivity" consists of history of the beach (better relegated to the article on the beach) followed by speculation ("a possible shift"). Most of the section "Coastal Dynamics & Climate Change" discusses climate change broadly and is more appropriate for that article, while the part about the Oceanside Wastewater Treatment Plant is more relevant to the article on the beach. The suggested solutions for the Great Highway problem in the "Infrastructure" section are not clearly sourced to a third party and so currently run afoul of Wikipedia:No original research (the factual information in that section seems fine). The material in the sections "History/Background", "Program & Uses", and "Management & Stewardship" seem less problematic and I think they could remain, either as an article or as a section in the article on the beach. Disclosure: I'm in the Ambassador program and was asked to examine this discussion by another Ambassador. I'm not particularly knowledgable in the area of public policy. Dcoetzee 04:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - Article may violate WP:ADVOCATE, as it appears to not be very well balanced with all points of view that may fall under this topic. That being said, the article's references need to be checked to see if they meet WP:RS guidelines. Presently I do not see a reason to delete or not delete the article. The title itself brings up very few google hits, there for it makes me question the notability of the subject. However if one were to group "Ocean Beach" and "Public Policy" separately, one gets 145K google hits. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you all for your comments. Just a little bit of background about the purpose of this article: Students in my graduate environmental law class were asked to write public policy articles for a federal, state, or local policy for Wikipedia's Public Policy Initiative. My partner and I chose a local public policy because we felt that this type of situation is under represented, both on Wikipedia and in the broader public policy arena in general, and so would be helpful for practitioners, students, and the general public alike. The article also makes an important connection between coastal management and climate change, which will be an area of increasing importance as climate change begins to affect vulnerable coastlines throughout the world (as it already has in San Francisco and many other areas), and something that both policy makers and voters alike will need to take into consideration in the near future. San Francisco is currently going through a challenging and unprecedented coastal management crisis that other coastal cities either are, or will be, going through soon, and I feel the more information available regarding this subject, the better. That being said, I have no problem if the consensus feels that the article should be moved to the Ocean Beach page, or needs further editing, but complete deletion seems somewhat extreme? This is my first time writing anything for Wikipedia, but I honestly thought the way it worked was that everyone contributes by either writing or editing articles, not just deleting something that you think needs to be edited? If that is the case then I don't see the point of people taking the time to write articles if they are deleted right away without a real opportunity to be edited/revised. Amybekah (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete" votes often imply that the material should be merged if there is a suitable target. I think the rationale that's behind typing 'Delete' is that an AfD for one article cannot decide what happens to another article, we can only decide what happens to this one. (Though it is common to see people voting "merge" as well, so maybe I'm just wrong.) —Soap— 00:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Delete - Thanks for the comment. After reading it, my opinion has changed that this article violates WP:ADVOCATE, and that all non-news references should be checked against WP:RS standards. The material that is supported by the content that meets RS standards should be merged into the article regarding Ocean Beach. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Ocean Beach, San Francisco, California, because the topic is not notable on its own. Sandstein 05:38, 18 May 2011 (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.