Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Municipal consolidation

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. A merge discussion can take place on the articles talk page. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal consolidation[edit]

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

Nominating my own page Tinton5 (talk) 23:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It isn't your page any more. You need to include a valid reason for deletion. Greglocock (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The only person who made a substantial edit was the author. In my opinion it classifies under WP:G7. The only other edits were adding a tag and adding the word "e.g." Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 00:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is obsolete. Toddst1 (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. I think there should be an article on this topic, and I'm more than willing to help expand it. It's certainly been a notable idea here in Canada for decades - there's actually a well-sourced entry on the amalgamation of Toronto here already - but I don't think the idea has been limited to the Great White North (and even if it is, that doesn't mean it's not notable). I found lots of useable, reliable sources for "municipal consolidation" and "municipal amalgamation" in quick Google and GScholar searches. At any rate, please consider not speedying it. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Multiple states have passed legislation about this. WP:CSD#G7 no longer applies as others have contributed. Toddst1 (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is an important concept that deserved an article long ago; I respect your right to ask for your own recent contributions to be deleted, but we can't delete pages with multiple major contributors unless all of them request deletion. In this case, we have a significant topic that's worthy of an article; I see no reason to delete. Nyttend (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable topic backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to Toronto, right off the top of my head I can name at least a dozen other Canadian cities that have gone through amalgamation processes as well, and there are a good many more than that — in Ontario alone, the number of municipalities has gone, almost entirely through amalgamations, from 815 in 1996 to 444 today. And we already have separate articles on Municipal reorganization in Quebec and Municipal amalgamations in New Brunswick, as well. And that's just in one country, whereas these have happened in many other countries as well (e.g. Súdwest-Fryslân in the Netherlands, which I learned about precisely by creating municipal amalgamation as a redirect to this article) — so, needless to say, the opportunities for expansion here are enormous. That said, we already have an article at Merger (politics), which covers more or less the same ground, although it's not much more than a very incomplete list of municipal mergers either. These two articles should probably be merged (irony duly noted!), although I don't presume to know which should be the primary title and which should be the redirect. Bearcat (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had noticed the Merger (politics) article and agree that the contents should be merged, but I think the name is terrible. "Merger (politics)" doesn't necessarily tell the reader that the article is going to be about the amalgamation or consolidation of two or more cities/counties/countries, etc. It sounds like it could be about mergers of political parties. Anyhow, I guess I'm just saying that, in my opinion andyway, any merged content should be at Municipal consolidation, not Merger (politics). Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 13:04, 3 January 2012 (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.