Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niagara Frontier

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. Notability is the key to inclusion, not anything else like how well-defined it is. If different sources conflict, then it is our duty to present all major viewpoints. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Niagara Frontier

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

First, let me make clear that the Niagara Frontier is a notable topic. The problem is that at this time an article is not sustainable or maintainable.

The statements in this article are wholly unsupported and completely uncited. The only source listed in the article is now a dead link.

I have searched for additional sources, and the vast majority merely mention the region in passing. Even those sources that are about the Niagara Frontier itself normally fail to define the area in a way that is useful to us. And even if there are sources that define the area adequately, it's likely that such sources would each define the region differently. That makes it veritably impossible to write an article about it.

The article appears to be widely linked, but in fact that's just an artifact of its presence in Template:New York. List of regions of the United States#New York does not mention it, probably because it's so poorly defined. Some sources indicate the frontier extends as far as Toledo, Ohio!

'But!' you say. 'This is a likely search term!' Indeed it is. But where would we redirect it to? We have no sources that clearly define the area. Even Western New York may not encompass the Niagara Frontier in its entirety, depending on how each region is defined. Without a useful or obvious redirect target, it's better to just delete the article and let the encyclopedia's search function take over.

I don't enjoy recommending this course of action, but I think it's the only one available given the dearth of clear definition and reliable sources for that definition.

-- Powers ^T 12:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A few months ago, a similar concern about the uncertain boundaries of a region was raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Carolina Lowcountry; the consensus there was that such definitional uncertainties are inevitable, but this is not a reason to delete an article about a well-recognized region. The same is true here. As already mentioned in the article, this region is recognized by the National Weather Service [1]. For a number of years, one of New York State's regional planning boards was the Niagara Frontier Planning Board, initially established in 1925 for Erie and Niagara Counties.[2][3]. GBooks shows many hundreds of books with "Niagara Frontier" in the title.[4] --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the evidence you've presented contradicts anything I said. We've got a crapton of references without any clear and consensus definition. Powers ^T 17:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's normal for regions like this to not have precise definitions. If the lack of a standard definition is a problem, it is a problem for pages like Appalachia, Pacific Northwest, and even Midwestern United States (which despite a Census Bureau definition is widely used in ways that differ from that definition, as the page points out). I don't see that as a problem though. Precise definitions are the exception rather than the rule in regional geography. The page can describe differing definitions. Also, I can't believe there's a lack of sources that don't just mention the region in passing. As Arxiloxos pointed out there are hundreds of sources on Google Books alone, many of which are not previewable (eg, [5]). I can't believe these have all been checked and found wanting. Pfly (talk) 08:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an impossibly high bar to have passed. I haven't found any sources that can reasonably claim to be about the region qua region; if you have, please share them. Powers ^T 02:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And furthermore, without a clear definition, What is this article about? How can we define the scope of this article? Powers ^T 02:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nominator's first sentence: "clear that the Niagara Frontier is a notable topic". Dricherby (talk) 10:49, 27 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.