Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meeuwenplaat: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Meeuwenplaat: expanded |
→Meeuwenplaat: edit |
||
Line 31:
*: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 Perhaps that info is out-of-date because the abolition of boroughs is discussed in [[Government_of_Rotterdam#Boroughs]], but still no mention of the neighborhoods or why they are significant. [[User:Kstern|Kstern]] ([[User talk:Kstern|talk]]) 15:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
:::1. Very notable: as explained above the bar for notability of geographical units is low: {{tq|verifiable information beyond simple statistics}}. In addition, the units also meet the high bar of significant coverage many times over. Of course, one could argue that for all recognized geographical units (with the exception of statistically designated areas and 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 no longer has 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. [[User:Gidonb|gidonb]] ([[User talk:Gidonb|talk]]) 17:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
| |||