Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angle Township, Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Angle Township, Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota[edit]
- Angle Township, Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Content fork of Northwest Angle. The Northwest Angle and Angle Township are the same thing, the scope of the two articles are almost identical.
Note to closing admin: This can't technically be deleted as the Northwest Angle article has content imported from the Township article, so interpret any delete votes as redirect. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The township is notable as a populated area. The only reason that this appears to be a content fork of Northwest Angle is because you imported the information giving the topics the same scope. Ryan Vesey 12:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the articles had the same scope before I imported that content. I imported that content because the content was well within the scope of the Northwest Angle article. The township, the Angle, whatever you call it, is notable as a populated area. That doesn't mean it needs two articles. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The township should certainly have its own article. I'd be more supportive of incorporating the Northwest Angle article into the township article than the other way around (but haven't done the research to know if I would actually support that, my gut tells me the Northwest Angle article is also notable). The fact that two articles cover the same geographical area does not mean that they have the same scope. Ryan Vesey 14:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the difference in the scope of the articles? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The township should certainly have its own article. I'd be more supportive of incorporating the Northwest Angle article into the township article than the other way around (but haven't done the research to know if I would actually support that, my gut tells me the Northwest Angle article is also notable). The fact that two articles cover the same geographical area does not mean that they have the same scope. Ryan Vesey 14:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the articles had the same scope before I imported that content. I imported that content because the content was well within the scope of the Northwest Angle article. The township, the Angle, whatever you call it, is notable as a populated area. That doesn't mean it needs two articles. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I believe the distinction here is that Angle Township is a political entity, while "the Northwest Angle" is a geographical region. They are certainly heavily related to each other, but that doesn't necessarily make one of them a content fork. See also the discussion on the talk page, while old I believe the points made against merging are still pertinent. (Also, why are we at AfD when even the nominator seems to be arguing for at most a merge and redirect? This seems perilously close to speedy keep criterion 1...) BryanG (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2013 (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.