Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Searsport (CDP), Maine
- 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 of the debate was no consensus (5 keep, 1 delete, 2 merge, making keep only 62.5%). Robert T | @ | C 00:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Searsport (CDP), Maine[edit]
1) the fact that the US census is over makes this much less notable, 2) it's just arbitraryly drawn district around Searsport and is not the same as the Searsport town lines 3) it makes for a confusing search when trying to find Searsport, Maine (the town) (evidenced by the history that categorized this as a town when it's not the town) and 4) it's just not adding anything useful to Wikiepdia when there is a good article with same statistics about the actual town in place. It's nothing more than a list of out of date statistics concerning an arbitrary ditrit (that no longer exists, because the census is over) that is better covered in another article. Even a merge would be a waste of time. Please delete this.Gator(talk) 19:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. - Gator(talk) 19:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Searsport (town), Maine and move to Searsport, Maine. See also Unity, Maine. Gazpacho 19:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Gazpacho. - Just zis Guy, you know? 21:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP The nominator is committing a fallacy...first of all, the census information is legally valid until the next census. Second, the 2010 census likely will use the same lines as those for the 2000 census. Also, some census-designated places have been very large and significant, and some later became cities (such as Sandy Springs, GA, pop 85,781). To delete an article on this basis alone is way off base. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryoung122 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The CDP and the town describe two different regions. It may not be useful for tourists, but it is useful for census, demographic, and statistical purposes. A map that distinguishes the two would probably be helpful. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 23:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, valid CDP until deprecated; any naming issues can be dealt with by disambiguation. MCB 01:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as per MCB. -- Decumanus 04:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. CDPs are notable. These are boundaries drawn by the census bureau and the areas are approximately the same size as municipalities, and often provide the only subdivision within a county. The World Almanac for example lists several such CDPs. If we started getting articles on individual census tracts, listed only by a number however, that would be a different story. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:05, 29 October 2005 (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.