Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Diego–Imperial (California)


 * 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 Southern Border region. Spartaz Humbug! 07:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

San Diego–Imperial (California)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The two counties seem to only be used in conjunction with each other for simple geographic uses and the term San Diego-Imperial maintains little to no significance or common use amongst officials or the general populace except for the a fore mentioned reasons. An analogy would be that even though California and Nevada are adjacent to one another and maintain a similar geography, there is no "California-Nevada" article. Thus it would seem sufficient that a sub-section on San Diego-Imperial county relations could simply be added to the prose of each. 08OceanBeach S.D. 18:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Historically Imperial County was once part of San Diego County, and it appears that several major organizations use the former jurisdiction bounderies as the basis of their own, such such as the Boy Scouts of America. an the Roman Catholic Church's Diocese of San Diego. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to San Diego metropolitan area. Neutralitytalk 03:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Only concern I have is that the article that you propose the merger to occur to is that it is also a redirect of the San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA MSA, of which Imperial County is not a part of. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * On second thought, that's correct. Delete. Neutralitytalk 06:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails verifiability as a concept. I have never seen any point to this article, which is about a "region" that doesn't really exist as a region. The article was subject to an earlier deletion discussion under its original name, "Southern Border (California)"; the result was "no consensus" plus the suggested rename. At that time the article was a huge mass of unrelated information copy-pasted from the San Diego County and Imperial County articles. It has since been trimmed of all the fat, and now its main focus appears to be attempting to prove that San Diego-Imperial is actually a real concept or real entity. IMO it fails in that attempt; there is no such entity. Of the references given, only reference 2 actually talks about the two counties as a unit; it is an obscure state economic report which discusses the state in terms of a dozen or so regions, and its region called "southern border" was the original inspiration (and only justification) for the original article. The other references do not verify the existence of the concept and do not discuss "San Diego-Imperial County relations". For example, reference 1 is a study commissioned by the San Diego Chamber of Commerce about the effect of an additional border crossing in San Diego County, and the effect it would have on San Diego County and other California counties including Los Angeles County, Santa Clara County, Sacramento County - but it doesn't even mention Imperial County that I could find! Similarly, reference 4 is a report from SANDAG, the San Diego Association of Governments, and does not appear to mention or include Imperial County. In response to suggestions above, it's true that Imperial County was once part of San Diego County, but so were Riverside, Inyo, and San Bernardino counties; anyhow Imperial has been a separate county for more than a hundred years. A few San Diego-based branch operations of nonprofits take in Imperial County as well as San Diego County, but that's largely a matter of convenience, because Imperial County isn't populous enough to maintain a full-fledged branch of its own. One other comment: don't redirect to San Diego Metropolitan Area as Neutrality suggested, because the San Diego Metropolitan Area does not include Imperial County by anyone's definition. Delete this and be done with it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum Somebody just created Southern Border region - basically a recreation of the original article Southern Border that got moved to Southern Border (California) and eventually became this one. I was about to nominate the new article for speedy deletion, but to my surprise it is a well developed article that almost persuades me that the region is real. At least, the state of California has continued to use it for economic analysis, and the new article makes it clear that is what it's about. I wouldn't object to keeping the content of the new article and redirecting this article to it. --MelanieN (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec)Comment Interesting to see "fails verifiability as a concept".  Seems like I argued this to no avail with the author of the quote for City Seminary which survived AfD with zero unambiguous references.   Unscintillating (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good heavens - still harping on that issue from months ago? "Argued to no avail" is correct; the closing administrator didn't buy your argument either, as I recall. --MelanieN (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec)Comment This is the second nomination for the article in the last seven weeks.  The nominator of the previous AfD moved the article from Southern Border (California) after the AfD.  Since the previous AfD had some strong support, the move seems to have had the effect that the article is less notable than the article was before the move.  Does either "Southern Border" or "San Diego–Imperial" exist?  I was surprised to see the number of Ghits for San Diego–Imperial.  I also looked at the previous name, and found that it was not "Southern Border" but "Southern Border region" that is the name of the geopolitical area created by the state.  There are 37 web sites at ca.gov that identify "Southern Border region".  These are easy to identify in a wider Google search because they use capital letters.  It also appears in a Google book and a Google scholar reference.  So did or does "Southern Border" exist?  I don't think so.  So I've created Southern Border region, in which it is also not clear that anyone would say that they live there, but it is a well-identified, well-studied and documented geopolitical region, not unlike South Coast Air Basin, Edward_F._Ricketts_State_Marine_Conservation_Area, and Pacific Grove Marine Gardens State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA).  The later survived AfD Articles for deletion/Pacific Grove Marine Gardens State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA).  In summary, given the existence of Southern Border region, should we save Southern Border (California) with the old edit history and the references as a redirect?  Unscintillating (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I do think your new article Southern Border region is better written and much more defensible than the one under discussion here. However, if that content is kept, I think the name needs to be changed in some way to indicate that it means the southern border region of California. --MelanieN (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice work on the article Unscintillating. Again I'm surprised by the appearance of reliable references. Regardless, the discussion regarding it's naming should take place at that articles talk page - not here. This is for the afd of San Diego-Imperial, which in my eyes doesn't relate to the Southern Border region. San Diego-Imperials focus seemed to be on geography and not economics. So I would say, in response to your comment, its history is not needed because it seems irrelevant. 08OceanBeach S.D.  20:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I see discussion is already taking place at the talk page of Southern Border region. 08OceanBeach S.D.  20:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect (to anywhere to preserve the edit history, including) to Category:San Diego–Imperial, California This topic may be notable (with more research) as an amalgam and it relates to a category, Category:San Diego–Imperial, California, that is currently in use.  I think the previous titles "Southern Border" and "Southern Border (California)" were misnomers based on a history that started with a music band, but it would be easy to make an argument that reliable sources (documented at Southern Border region) support their existence and notability.  My biggest problem with deletion is that only administrators would then be able to use the edit history as a reference, it is useful for multiple reasons including understanding this and the previous AfD and current discussion at Talk:Southern Border region, and there is nothing in this edit history that needs to be hidden.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly this article could and possibly should be redirected to preserve its convoluted editing history. But not to Category:San Diego–Imperial, California. In the first place, redirecting an article to a category makes little sense, and in the second place, I have nominated that category for deletion as serving no purpose that is not already served by Category:San Diego County, California and Category:Imperial County, California. I would suggest a redirect to the new article Southern Border region or whatever it ends up being called. --MelanieN (talk) 03:25, 11 June 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.