Talk:West Side (San Francisco)

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗

Restoration of Great Highway content

I've restored content related to the closure of the Great Highway, which was previously removed with the edit summary "overly detailed recentism." The closure is a significant and ongoing political issue affecting residents of San Francisco's West Side, with extensive media coverage and real-world impact. This includes reporting from major outlets such as the San Francisco Chronicle, KQED, LA Times and other national and regional sources.

The removed material was factually accurate, neutrally written, and properly sourced. Given its significance in recent citywide elections, public planning, and transportation debates, I believe it warrants inclusion in this article. If anyone has concerns about specific parts of the content, I'm more than happy to work collaboratively to refine or condense it, but I don't believe a near-total removal is appropriate without prior discussion. Goldrock95 (talk) 07:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I have tried to summarise the content in an encyclopaedic way. I am not against including the dispute about the closure, but it really should not be longer than a sentence. It may be locally important, but Wikipedia is global encyclopaedia, and we really do not need to add who was was boo-ing who and who was called a “bike-slut”. That is beyond WP:TRIVIA. It also goes against WP:RECENTISM, there were surely many other such local disputes in San Francisco history, but we don't devote such an ungodly amount of text to each of them. It's undue weight to focus such a large portion of the text on what is essentially a recent traffic/neighbourhood politics dispute. WP is not news and it's written for a global audience.
I hope you don't take this as me attacking the quality of your additions, I'm just saying this part needs to summarised to reflect a more encyclopaedic style. SigillumVert (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback, SigillumVert.
I completely understand your concern regarding WP:RECENTISM and the need for summaries that reflect an encyclopedic tone suitable for a global readership. I agree that we should avoid overly detailed or sensationalistic content, and I’m more than happy to trim the section down and revise it so it aligns better with Wikipedia's guidelines.
That said, I do feel that the political divide surrounding the closure of the Great Highway is a uniquely illustrative issue when discussing the dynamic between the West Side and East Side of San Francisco. This wasn’t just a temporary or one-off dispute, it’s an ongoing point of civic contention that significantly shapes the political identity of the West Side and continues to impact local elections (ex. supervisor recall), ballot initiatives, and community relationships. Over two-thirds of West Side voters rejected the closure, and this issue has been featured repeatedly in citywide news and political discourse.
I’d be happy to take a pass at rewriting this part to ensure it’s more balanced and neutral, while still capturing the broader implications of the issue. I’ll also make sure to remove any anecdotes that could be considered trivial or editorializing (such as the “bike-slut” quote). Goldrock95 (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
I think this has been a good step in the right direction. My view is that the best way to rewrite and trim this part is to focus on how this issue fits into the difference, political and other, between east and west San Francisco, rather than getting every detail of the chronology down. Best regards, SigillumVert (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
I agree that the east/west San Francisco divide is central to understanding the issue, and I tried to highlight that with the Prop K results and broader neighborhood context. Since this is still an active and evolving situation I’m not sure there’s much more to add (or remove) without losing important recent developments.
I'd be happy to keep refining it if you have specific suggestions, though. Goldrock95 (talk) 09:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Improper Removal of Verifiable, WP:BLUE-Compliant Content

Much of the content removed from this article was factual, well-known, and clearly verifiable from other Wikipedia pages and reliable sources. Per WP:BLUE, non-controversial, widely accepted facts do not require inline citations. I strongly object to the removal of this material and to the draftification of the page without any prior discussion.

I’ve restored relevant content and will be seeking review of the unilateral actions taken against this article. The page was not machine-generated, and this action appears to be an abuse of discretion. Goldrock95 (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Objection to Draftification and Restoration to Mainspace

I am the main contributor to this article and have restored it to mainspace per WP:DRAFTOBJECT. The article was moved to draft without any prior discussion, despite being human-written and containing extensive citations.

Two major sections—historical timeline and neighborhood features were removed for lacking inline citations, though these contained well-known, verifiable, and non-controversial facts that fall under [WP:BLUE]. These sections should not have been removed wholesale without a talk page discussion.

If there are further concerns, I am more than willing to discuss improvements here. However, per policy, the article should not have remained in draft space over the objection of its primary editor. Goldrock95 (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

This is sufficiently developed it shouldn't be drafitifed. It almost certainly should be discussed at WP:AFD for deletion. Of course San Francisco can be divided into an east and a west half, but the weakness of the references suggests that people very rarely do so, and neither should Wikipedia. Why aren't articles like Sunset District, San Francisco (which didn't mention "West Side" until Goldrock95 added the term) sufficient? 217.180.228.155 (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
This article is being actively developed and already cites multiple civic and journalistic sources that describe the West Side as a regional term used in San Francisco. The purpose is to document, not "invent" how the term is used.
If someone chooses to take it to AfD, that’s their right, but posting vague deletion arguments here immediately after a noticeboard dispute doesn’t exactly look organic. Either way, I’ll respond accordingly if it’s formally nominated. Goldrock95 (talk) 01:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

What's up with all the poor sources

Was this patched together by AI? 166.205.97.70 (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

You speak much wisdom, Anon. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
The citations in the lead are there to show that the term "Westside" is actually used by local sources. The SFMTA and the Sunset Beacon/Richmond Review both use the term right in the headline which supports the point that this is a recognized regional label in San Francisco.
Your claim that the article was written by AI or calling the citations “bad” without giving any clear reason is unproductive. If you think a specific source doesn’t meet Wikipedia’s standards feel free to point it out and explain why. Otherwise vague unsunstantiated accusations come off as trolling. Goldrock95 (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
These sources use the term, they aren't about the term. Analyzing sources to synthesize an argument runs afoul of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. 166.205.97.70 (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Just clicking some more random cites, they are not about the topic either. You linked to some unreliable sales site (the one I removed as spam), did you think that was a reliable source? I'm not sure if there any reliable sources on this topic present. 166.205.97.70 (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
I just removed an article about Asians voting trends which didn't use "West" in the article once. I also removed a blog. You can understand why an article about voting trends in all of San Francisco for one group isn't about West San Francisco, right? 166.205.97.70 (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
@Goldrock95: Check out WP:THREE. Are there three reliable sources—particularly books, preferably academic—independent of the subject, that discuss the topic in detail? Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
@imperatrix and Anonymous,
The citations in the lead and throughout the article are not being used to analyze or synthesize a new argument about the term “West Side”, they’re being used to demonstrate that the term is actively used by multiple reliable sources such as civic agencies and local news media, to describe a legitimate and recognized area of San Francisco.
This isn't about interpreting the sources to create something new. It's about showing how the term is actually used in real world contexts. If multiple sources refer to an area as the “West Side” that supports a factual observation about regional naming, similar to how articles on Westside (Los Angeles County) or East San Jose rely on real world naming conventions rather than formal political boundaries.
That said, if there are specific sources you believe are unreliable or improperly placed, Id behappy to review them and improve the sourcing. But removing entire sections or challenging the existence of the article based solely on a narrow interpretation of what "about the topic" means ignores how Wikipedia handles regionally defined content.
Also, per WP:GEOLAND, many geographic articles are built on demonstrated usage, not just academic deep dives.
If notability is being formally questioned, then the proper venue is WP:AFD, where the full scope of sourcing and relevance can be evaluated in context. Goldrock95 (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Just to clarify the restored cicitaon... While it doesn’t use the exact term “West Side” it talks about neighborhoods like the Sunset, Richmond, and Parkside, which are all widely recognized as being on the west side of San Francisco. The article discusses how those areas tend to vote more moderately than the east side, mainly due to the influence of Asian voters. That’s relevant here because Asians make up a large share of the West Side population, so it directly supports the point about the region’s political leanings. Goldrock95 (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
You are misunderstanding sourcing requirements. You need citations that say what you claim they say. The prose mentions the politics of this area. The citations you provided are not about the politics of the area. It's about Asians in all of San Francisco. It doesn't discuss the west side, or mention it. Do you understand why that source would be applicable to a statement about San Francisco, but not West San Francisco? 166.205.97.70 (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
I just removed a few more sources that were about all of San Francisco, but were being used to discuss West San Francisco - quite possibly incorrectly. Nothing in those sources mentioned the west side, and I don't believe every district voted identically.
How did you get these sources? Did you use any tools? 166.205.97.70 (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Notability and strength of the article

Colloquially speaking, I have heard of a general grouping of the western neighborhoods due to similar characteristics in a politcal context. But I'd warn against being so hasty in creating an article of such a large scope without even one scholarly source referring to a capital W "West Side". Because right now, it seems like a hodge podge of sources referring to the branches rather than the tree (i.e. talking about the neighborhoods but not the "West Side" proper; WP:SYNTH) with an almost editorial recounting on local history. (e.g. West vs. East subsection. Are there even enough sources to delineate an "East Side"?) Refer to WP:POPULATED and WP:GNG for further. -- BriefEdits (talk) 05:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree that there are not definitive academic sources that have wrote specically about the term West Side. Then again, there are nunerous local and high profile news outlets (SF Chronicle, SF Examiner, SF Standard, KRON 4 News) that completely acknowledge the West Side as a unique region of SF. Additionally, SF government agencies (see SFMTA citation) state by name West Side in their press release. Many Wikipedia articles like West Side (Los Angeles County) and East San Jose lack citations that explicitly focus on their name. I'd go a step further and say this article is over-sourced – the Western neighborhoods project website is cited multiple times and they are the principal archive for West Side historic photos and information. I am a 4th generation San Francisco native born and raised in the city and can attest the West Side is an accurate term. I know my own perceptions are irrelevant in an Encyclopaedia context, but I have the utmost confidence in the articles content and sources. The other terms listed at the top are interchangeable with West side (the avenues, West of Twin Peaks and the Western neighborhoods). There is a book, "West of Twin Peaks" by Jacqueline Proctor which also serves as further evidence to support the region. I feel this article has been bombarded with overzealous editors that want to hold it to a standard that doesn't exist anywhere else on Wikipedia. Also the concept for an "East Side" doesn't exist because the term isn't used. Downtown usually refers to areas East of Van Ness Ave. The West Side is distinguished from other parts of the city due to a multitude of factors – politics, infrastructure, demographic and natural resources. I think this is a great article and necessary for a clear understanding of this part of San Francisco. Goldrock95 (talk) 05:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Again, I don't disagree with the concept of a "west side" as a broad category of suburban neighborhoods the same way I don't disagree that there is more affluent old money in the city's "north side" and more industrial, working class on the "east side". But the formation of the article is really shaky. Per WP:POPULATED: "[Populated places without legal recognition]...any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources." That is why I brought up the scholarly source in my initial line of questioning because it still appears hazy what the specific attributes are. Because the state of the article reads like WP:SYNTH (i.e. a collection of information on neighborhoods on the western side of San Francisco but nothing that really ties it together as something that is its own entity).
There also remains a lot of tidying up as is that makes the article read unencyclopedic. Is it "westside" or "west side" or "West Side"? If it is capital W "West Side", we'd need to see attribution in reliable sources. You assert that the "West Side" is also referred to as "the Avenues" but does that include Forest Hill or Sea Cliff or are you just referring to the Sunset and Richmond? The surfing stuff seems out of place. Sacred Heart is located on Cathedral Hill, not the Tenderloin. Oceanview is referenced as a member but the map doesn't include it. And there are so many typos...
I'm dropping in to raise these issues because I got confused assessing the article from the perspective of a Wikipedia editor. I don't want to discourage your editing; it just feels like you're moving a bit fast. Even if things feel like common knowledge to you, try sourcing them with inline sources. I hope this clarify things. BriefEdits (talk) 04:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. A review of the literature reveals only passing WP:MENTIONs (with most mentions being lower cased general descriptors), while only a handful of news outlets describe it as a discrete area (with the majority of them also being mentions). Generally, this is a thing for blogs, zines, socmed and realtors. There is a serious dearth of sustained, independent and extensive coverage in reliable sources. Unfortunately repeated mentions do not tip the balance into notability just by weight of numbers (and as an analyss of the sources on the article talk page suggests, many of them are not even relevant to the topic or fail to mention it at all). Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
    Well, It seems like this discussion is turning into a shadow AfD without actually going through the proper process. If there is serious belief that the article does not meet WP:GEO or WP:NOTABILITY then the correct venue for that is Articles for Deletion (AfD) not a Talk Page vote.
    I want to address some of the points raised:
    • The term West Side is used by a vast majority of media (SF Chronicle, SF Examiner, SF Standard, KRON4) and SFMTA which is a government agency.
    • The claim that these are just “passing mentions” is not accurate. Multiple sources use the term to describe a distinct region of San Francisco (just like Westside Los Angeles or East San Jose).
    • West of Twin Peaks is well documented both in local archives (Western neighborhoods project) and in Jacqueline Proctor's book which specifically discusses the area as a defined region of the city.
    • Local terminology doesn’t require academic theses to be valid. It just requires demonstrable, consistent usage, which the sources clearly show.
    If there is disagreement then AfD is the place to resolve it not this informal “delete” vote on a talk oage. Goldrock95 (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)