Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meeuwenplaat

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 as proposed by Gidonb. This proposal has remained essentially uncontested since it has been made. I'll leave the actual redirecting to interested editors. Sandstein 20:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meeuwenplaat

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage. WP:SIGCOV Kstern (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:[reply]

Keep. Seems to easily pass WP:NGEO, which has a low bar, all that is needed is

verifiable information beyond simple statistics

Lefaivre, L. (2007). Ground-up City Play: Ground-up City. Netherlands: 010 Publishers.
Graaf, P. v. d. (2009). Out of Place? Emotional Ties to the Neighbourhood in Urban Renewal in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press. CT55555(talk) 03:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it still passes WP:NGEO and there are sources on the Internet (see above) which could be used to verify it. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - consensus on validity of NGEO has been tested many times and in my opinion it is way too difficult to formulate an alternative notability criteria for this topic area. JMWt (talk) 09:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Districts and neighbourhoods of Rotterdam or respective districts like Hoogvliet for the top one. Just because they exist doesn't mean there should be useless one-liners for them. Anyone is welcome to actually write a legitimate article with sources, but a redirect is better than junk like this. These are smaller neighborhoods within official districts and don't have presumed notability either. Reywas92^Talk 14:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all, each neighborhood to its own borough. The neighborhoods are VERY notable, as the keep-sayers rightfully note, and all are RIDICULOUSLY premature WP:SPINOFFs of their respective boroughs. There's nothing in each but a definition. Their boroughs, which is the previous spatial unit in the Rotterdam spatial hierarchy, are listed only in the infoboxes, not in the sole phrase. The list mentioned in the directly above opinion is for outgoing links and is a very low priority for incoming links. gidonb (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why the neighborhoods are "very notable"? I'm asking with genuine interest in both the topic and the WP rules. The main article only mentions submunicipalities (possible synonym of "borough") as administrative divisions (see Rotterdam#Composition). Perhaps that info is out-of-date because the abolition of boroughs is discussed in Government_of_Rotterdam#Boroughs, but still no mention of the neighborhoods or why they are significant. Kstern (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Very notable: as explained above the bar for notability of geographical units is low:verifiable information beyond simple statistics. In addition, the units also meet the high bar of significant coverage in WP:NEXIST many times over. Of course, one could argue that for all recognized geographical units (with the exception of statistically designated areas and other loosely defined areas) this is the case and that the bar was set low so we would not waste time with needless discussions about notability.

2. As is clear from my position, notability is a required but insufficient condition for keeping an article. For example, these topics are notable but the articles still need to be redirected.

3. Rotterdam DOES NOT have sub-municipalities. When it did, these covered only some of its area. The status was granted to areas that had been more recently annexed to Rotterdam to provide these a greater degree of autonomy than other regions.

4. The boroughs were NOT abolished. The link you provided says so. Boroughs are the primary spatial division of Rotterdam. Neighborhoods secondary. gidonb (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's a LOT more of these linked from Template:Neighborhoods of Rotterdam. So many unsourced articles with a single line stating that they're a neighborhood of Rotterdam. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between those advocating Keep and those seeking a Redirect. And if you prefer a Redirect, please be kind to the discussion closer and specify what the redirect target should be for each article that is nominated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per Liz's request, to have listed right here to which borough each neighborhood belongs:

Varenbuurt → Prins Alexander

Sportdorp → IJsselmonde, Rotterdam

Waalhaven district → Waalhaven (move infobox to target)

Het Lage Land → Prins Alexander

Groenenhagen-Tuinenhoven → IJsselmonde, Rotterdam ‎

Feijenoord (neighbourhood) → Feijenoord district (rename the target Feijenoord)

Oudeland → Hoogvliet

Nieuw Engeland → Hoogvliet‎

Molièrebuurt → IJsselmonde, Rotterdam ‎

Molenlaankwartier → Hillegersberg-Schiebroek

Millinxbuurt → Charlois

Middengebied → Hoogvliet‎

Middelland → Delfshaven‎

Waalhaven, as a port area, is a bit of an exception in the nomination. It's the only item that should move with the infobox (i.e. smerge). District will be no longer needed for Feijenoord's target (Feijenoord is already a redirect here). gidonb (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to do this, gidonb. If the closure is for Redirect All, this will really help the closer handle the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an acceptable solution to me. However, if we are going to redirect each neighborhood to its corresponding borough, all the existing neighborhoods should be evaluated for redirection, not just the ones in the nomination. As previously mentioned in this discussion, there are others that are one-liners or sparsely sourced. Kstern (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liz and Kstern, glad you like it! Kstern, go for it!!! Please, other nominations in a separate batch or batches at this stage in the discussion. Liz implied that merger of article sets is far more complex than it seems. She got that point well across after running through the full implications of my proposal for each one of 13 spatial units. gidonb (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 04:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For fair disclosure, in all unnominated cases, these will be my recommendations: just a definition → redirect; elements missing on the borough or equivalent page → merge; long writeup that would create an undue situation at merge → keep. gidonb (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all per gidonb suggestions. Fails GNG. NGEO is not an excuse to fragment subjects endlessly and force readers to chase links. // Timothy :: talk 05:24, 8 March 2023 (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.