Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural Bridges State Beach


 * 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   keep.  MBisanz  talk 23:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Natural Bridges State Beach

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No reliable sources found to verify notability. Prod declined without addressing underlying notability concern. &mdash;  X   S   G   21:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to California State Beaches - This beach doesn't appear to meet general notability guidelines on its own. &mdash;   X   S   G   21:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Like state parks, all state beaches should be considered be notable; any problem with sourcing probably reflects inadequate searching--as it did here, where there are 4 relevant hits among the first 30 of the 12,600 on   Google for the phrase parks.ca.gov KQED, NOAA,UC SC, -- and 12 photos on [Commons]; GS has 22, etc etc..  DGG (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I can concede that with proper sourcing, the subject would be clearly notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, but... as its own article? If State Parks or State Beaches are notable for being what they are, then they should be notable on the California State Parks or California State Beaches page, not necessarily on their own, no? &mdash;   X   S   G   06:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect pending being expanded to Santa Cruz, California. I believe that since State Beaches are State Parks they meed notability and Natural bridges could be fleshed out more if someone took the time and properly referenced. But lacking any expansion or references this article would eventually earn a delete from me. Gateman1997 (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - state beaches are notable. --Ixfd64 (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Can you find a guideline stating as much? Otherwise, I'll suggest that no subject is inherently notable. &mdash;   X   S   G   06:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.   --  TravellingCari  02:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Any state park is quite notable: plenty of reliable sources exist to document them. The only way we could reasonably delete a state park article on notability-related grounds is if it were proven to be a hoax.  Nyttend (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. State beaches are government operated recreational facilities, like public parks.  They are almost guaranteed to be verifiable in official publications.  And like villages and other geographic names that have always been considered inherently notable, they should be.  There may be some degree of granularity beyond which it might be undesirable to pass - small municipal playgrounds, for instance, may not make the cut.  A state-run park doesn't require any decision as to where that line might run, though. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep State beaches such as this are notable. rootology ( C )( T ) 21:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep nominator seems to want a merge, an AfD isn't needed. RMHED (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.