Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damariscotta-Newcastle, 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 KEEP. &mdash; J I P  | Talk 08:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Damariscotta-Newcastle, Maine
Unclear what value/meaning this CDP page has in addition to the Damariscotta, Maine and Newcastle, Maine pages describing these towns in Maine. Is the CDP the union of these two towns? If so, why is the population *less* than their combined population? ScottMainwaring 04:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Humorous comment: It's one of those weird places that Stephen King writes about. Something is happening up there that you don't want to know about but will soon be made into a major motion picture when it's all over and the world has been saved from Lovecraftian aliens with glowing red eyes which will make the paperback edition fly off the shelves so that unscheduled layover at O'Hare will be a lot less boring. Daniel Case 05:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: Census-designated place explains weirdnesses in how CDPs are defined. Perhaps this one is weirdly defined (i.e. isn't Damariscotta plus Newcastle) or the statistics are wrong.  But it's a big article generated from census data so I don't see why it should be deleted just because two numbers don't add up.  &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 07:02Z 
 * Keep I disagree with this article being deleted. While Damariscotta Maine and Newcastle Maine are towns, Damaroscptta Newcastle Maine is a CDP which does not cover the towns, but rather areas without a municipal government. The possibility is that Damariscotta-Newcastle Maine is an area between the two towns? Or perhaps it is just geographically located near both, and the name was decided upon becasue of this. Onthost 04:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Damariscotta-Newcastle CDP includes the parts of the two towns near the border between them |b=50|l=en|t=420|zf=0.0|ms=ref_stat_00dec|dw=0.1397926221024198|dh=0.07458776315041693|dt=gov.census.aff.domain.map.EnglishMapExtent|if=gif|cx=-69.5325115|cy=44.0286435|zl=4|pz=4|bo=315:314:313:323:319|bl=362:393:392:355:354|ft=350:349:335:389:388:332:331|fl=381:403:204:380:369:379:368|g=16000US2316322&-PANEL_ID=rm_result&-_pageY=&-_lang=en&-geo_id=16000US2316322&-_pageX=&-_mapY=&-_mapX=&-_latitude=&-format=&-_pan=&-ds_name=null&-_longitude=&-_changeMap=ZoomIn. Who knows why the Census Bureau decided to do this. -- Mwalcoff 00:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment** OK, this article should defently NOT be deleted since it is not a mistake. Thank you for clarifying this for us. Onthost 02:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Onthost & Mwalcoff. -- JLaTondre 18:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I.e., I've been talked out of advocating its deletion. Thanks everyone for clarifying the status of this CDP.  I've revised the three pages (Damariscotta, Newcastle, and Damariscotta-Newcastle) to try to capture their interrelationship. ScottMainwaring 06:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.