Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pacific Grove Marine Gardens State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA)


 * 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 but probably merge. Discussion on how and where to merge should continue on the article talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Pacific Grove Marine Gardens State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Edward F. Ricketts State Marine Conservation Area covers two marine reserves. This article is about only one of them. I don't think this article is being very useful at the moment. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with the nominator's reasoning. It is better to have one article when the second only repeats the same information. However I don't think there is anything in WP policy, or WP tradition, that says that this kind of logic and common sense should prevail over an editor's right to write an article on a notable topic. And both conservation areas are certainly notable. Borock (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Marginal keep The fact that the information is duplicated elsewhere is not a reason to delete it. However, the area may fail the notability test, for lack of coverage by independent reliable sources. As the article originally stood, every single one of its references were self-referential. I added one outside reference but I couldn't find much else. However, I think it's possible that a state reserve like this may have some kind of inherent notability. --MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The largest issue I have with this article is that it takes mainly from primary sources, with very few (except for two), secondary or tertiary sources. Otherwise, I don't see a large reason for it to be deleted, but wouldn't see a large reason to keep it either per the reasoning of the nominator. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Merge and redirect. There's very little information available, merge two pages with sparse sources together. tedder (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Geographic areas are inherently notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect While geographic areas may be inherently notable, this protection zone is more like the mapping of the planning and zoning commission of a city and has little inherent notability, and the lede itself discusses 4 adjacent MPAs. The material about the Monterey Aquarium I feel shows that the current topic lacks focus.  Meanwhile, one of the few facts that we know about this SMCA, the depth-range, is omitted.  Merging all of the SMCA material into a table I think would make it encyclopedic, as well as more interesting.  My thought is to suggest the lowest level above the local SMCA, which would be to put such a table in an article about SMCAs.  As mentioned above, there are still more merge options.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2011 (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.