Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meeuwenplaat

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. 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.

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 that you provided says so. gidonb (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]