Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Central Minnesota


 * 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 delete. It took a while, but it appears we have a rough consensus to delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

East Central Minnesota

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This region, as defined in the article, seems to be an invention by prominently mentioned "development consortium" GPS:45:93. Other than their brochure, only one of the cited sources even mentions "East Central Minnesota", and it's unclear whether they mean the same region. I couldn't find significant references to those five counties as "East Central Minnesota" outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. The local library organization and labour council use the term "East Central Minnesota", but they don't mean these five counties (and they don't agree with each other, either), so there's no indication that this is a well-defined region. The content of the article is mostly a bunch of lists and statistics that may be correct, but grouping them in this way is original research. Huon (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep - This region is specifically defined in many places, most notably by the State of Minnesota here. Places in proximity to the region or adjacent to the region are at times loosely and incorrectly referred to as in East Central Minnesota, but locals know which five counties are in actuality in the region.--John2690-john2690 (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So the East-Central Regional Library, East Central Minnesota Area Labor Council, East Central Energy, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources are all non-locals who don't know what they're talking about? Sure about that? Huon (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 *  Merge Delete to Minnesota. Fails WP:GNG and consequently fails WP:GEOLAND.--Pontificalibus 11:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC) ...Changed to delete on reflection because there is nothing here worth mentioning not already mentioned in Geography of Minnesota.--Pontificalibus  16:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 *  Keep  - as it meets WP:GEOLAND as a legally recognized place by the State of Minnesota here. The other aforementioned organizations (i.e. labor council, electric co-op, etc.) loosely base themselves on this region.  Are you able to clarify your reference about the Minnesota DNR?  Thanks. --John2690-john2690 (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * East Central Minnesota Economic Development Region is not a "populated place" which is what WP:GEOLAND refers to, it is an area - are you suggesting that all the other areas on that page are automatically notable, e.g. Workforce Service Area 03, Mankato-North Mankato Micro-Statistical Area? --Pontificalibus 09:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Workforce service area 3 is not an apples-to-apples comparison. Mankato-North Mankato Micro-Statistical Area already has a page Mankato – North Mankato metropolitan area although entitled incorrectly.  All of Minnesota's micropolitan statistical areas have their own Wiki pages.  East Central Minnesota is more than an economic development region; it is a notable place name, important to Minnesotans and non-Minnesotans alike.--John2690-john2690 (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the Mankato-North Mankato Metropolitan Area (not micropolitan, no, they are a federally designated MPO now see https://mnmapo.org/) is different then a multi-county region of a state. We aren't talking about Southern Minnesota or South-Central Minnesota. Neither of those have pages and are far more culturally defined. By comparison Region Nine Development Commission does not have a separate page. That is an apples to oranges comparison and your point is factually inaccurate. Outside of maybe the economic development staff and some regional planners the term does not have relevance in a common, verifiable way that is appropriate for a seperate Wikipedia page. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep - Please see Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, East Central Energy Coop, East Central Economic Development, Habitat.org. It goes on forever, but East Central Minnesota is not an "invention". Also see Texas Hill Country, Southern California, Mississippi Delta, and on and on. Do not merge. — Maile (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Those three regions all have multiple sources dicussing the characterstics of the relevent region in detail. However, the sources you've provided don't represent signficant coverage in reliable sources. The first also assigns 13 counties to the region, only two of which are present in the list of 5 counties in our article. WP:GEOLAND states "subdivisions...informal regions of a state..should be included in the more general article" if they fail WP:GNG.--Pontificalibus 15:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * - do any two of those organizations use the same definition of "East Central Minnesota"? I don't think so. Are there reliable sources that consistently define what "East Central Minnesota" is and that discuss it? I haven't seen any. Just becase the combinations of words "East Central Minnesota" (or "east central Minnesota") sees use, it's not necessarily a valid topic for an encyclopedia article. Removing all WP:SYN content would amount to blanking the page. Huon (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Weak merge with Geography of Minnesota. I haven't run into anything significant describing this region that wasn't related to a watershed or flooding. Consider also merging Central Minnesota, which also suffers from a lack of content.-- Molandfreak  (talk,   contribs,  email) 16:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm seeing a lot of independent news sources making mention of this region https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22East+Central+Minnesota%22+-wikipedia.--John2690-john2690 (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * All trivial passing mentions, like "central southern England" which is used by e.g. weather forecasters but doesn't warrant an article because there is no in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources.--Pontificalibus 07:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Standard protocol on Wikipedia is that you should only give one bold "keep" vote. It's improper to reply to another user in a deletion discussion with a bold "keep" if you have already stated your opinion, because it is otherwise difficult to distinguish and may appear as additional support.-- Molandfreak  (talk,   contribs,  email) 16:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Userfy. Do not keep this in the Main article space. It currently fails WP:GNG. WP:USERFYIT until significant coverage occurs. Pontificalibus finds that. Unable to locate better sources, I agree with Pontificalibus. I encountered the same as Molandfreak, finding and I support Huon's finding that. -- Paleorthid (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete This is a WP:SYNTH article and should be deleted. Of the sources provided above, none of them clearly define "East Central" as a source. This is functionally a WP:NORG article for the GPS thing masquerading as a geography article, though there are a couple of other organisations which do appear to serve the five county region, though there are many other articles which define the area more broadly. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a WP:SYNTH article and should be deleted. Being that I am member of Minnesota wikiproject and from Minnesota I have yet to hear of a commonly accepted definition of what "East Central Minnesota" is. I think that this is original research that was used to create a new term that is not narrowly defined, verifiable way. Yes, there is a regional development commission that covers this area but there is not enough verifiable information nor is there a true body of culture that exists to differentiate what is and is not 'east-central' vs 'central' vs 'west-central'. This concept stands apart from commonly use references to regions such as Northern Minnesota, the Iron Range, the Twin Cities, Southern Minnesota, the Arrowhead etc. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. I am not too concerned by inconsistent definitions, but the article as it stands amounts to promotion for GPS:45:93 and the definition is based on their interests.  Having said that, there is a possible article to write at this title.  I am seeing a lot of sources on the geology of the region which seems to be distinctive, and possibly the same for ecology. SpinningSpark 19:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Just because a region may exist (with or without defined boundaries) there no need to duplicate such basic mundane information like the county seats just because it's there. Even if it has distinctive geology there's Geology of Minnesota and this article is pointless synthesis. Reywas92Talk 23:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It may make some sense to take off county seats, but this region has defined boundaries by the State of Minnesota (region 7e, East Central Minnesota) and numerous other regional organizations. Enough so to deem it notable.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Untenable synthesis almost completely devoid of worthwhile information that doesn't appear in a more suitable place. There is nothing in this article that would provide any real value or understanding to a reader. "East Central Minnesota" is a vague title and could mean a number of things - what's here now does not warrant an article. (Anecdotally, I have never heard of the phrase "PICKM Counties" - it sounds like a neologism developed as a marketing attempt, and the references seem to bear that out.) --Sable232 (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2019 (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.