Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia, WA CSA

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 Redirect. This article has no sources whatsoever, and barely any content, it makes eminent sense to restore it to a redirect as it was previously unless and until a proper article with proper sourcing can be developed. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia, WA CSA[edit]

Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia, WA CSA (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)

It's simply the Census Bureau's name for the Seattle metro area. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 21:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems emininently sensible for Wikipedia to define what this is. Redirecting to List of primary statistical areas of the United States doesn't make sense to me, because that is a list of all bluelinks linking out to articles about the statistical areas. Clicking on one of them randomly, i find that the Hartford-West Hartford one redirects to a section in a Greater Hartford article that gives detailed information about the statistical area. I would not object if someone wanted to create or develop a similar section in the Seattle metro area article, and redirect this to there, but they can do that without having an AFD. Or someone could develop this more. A 4.2 million population area is important. --doncram 23:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:31, 21 December 2016 (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.