Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nashville-Davidson (balance), Tennessee

Nashville-Davidson (balance), Tennessee was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep.

This short bot page is not very good, and merely duplicates some of the information from the Nashville, Tennessee article. It's listed as an orphan, and no wonder. RivGuySC 20:32, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there are thousands of these useless articles. Someone decided that the United States was so notable that every administrative subdivision in it should have a page. Maybe they were right. In any case, deleting them all would be an enormous task with this process. Still, towns with two inhabitants notable, schools with thousands of attendees not notable? Hmmm. Still, this is actually, it seems, a city-level subdivision. If it is Nashville (it seems to be), maybe redirecting is the right thing. If it's something else, keep.Dr Zen 23:13, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Rambot articles are a great thing. This seems to be about a "balance" of a city that is in a county.  I.e. it seems to be suggesting that the part of Nashville that's in Davidson county doesn't get counted in the Nashville stats?  It's not very clear.  All cities and towns deserve articles, including those in the various parts of the EU, and Rambot is NPOV (cf. what happens with Australian towns submitted by users who make up places, call names, etc.).  Abstain for now, because I cannot tell yet whether this is a demographic correction or just a local partisan cutting and pasting the Nashville article. Geogre 02:36, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The article is legit. Check the history, it was created by the rambot.  What it represents is just unknown. -- Ram-Man
 * Weird. Ram-Man's suggestion is probably the best, here:  Merge and redirect to Nashville, Tennessee.  (Look, I get annoyed having every other random page be a demographic, but you should compare that to the taunting and juvenalia that goes on with cities that aren't done by Rambot.)  Geogre 17:57, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. These rambot articles were in hindsight probably a mistake, they've made the geography coverage very US-centric. A small town in say Uganda probably won't get a corresponding article. But that can't be undone. Deleting them, or even sorting through them, is pointless now. They did help to set the bar as to what is encyclopedic, and in hindsight they set it a bit low. But it was good to set it. Andrewa 08:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. And over time the geography coverage is growing more global. If Uganda were to release census data like this and someone were to make a bot for it, I would accept those articles too. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:26, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Hindsight, schmindsight. It was obvious at the time they were a mistake, but this was during the time when some people (hi Ramman!) thought increasing the article count trumped all other considerations.  Wikipedia is not a gazetteer, but some idiots wouldn't be told. GWO 12:04, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Not true, but no offense taken. As fun as it was to see article count going up, I performed the work because that was what I was interested in, same as everyone else (See the initial edits by User:Ram-Man if you don't believe me). I added almost all of the 3,141 county articles manually the same as anyone else, without the help of a bot, before finally writing the bot in order to help me with cities. -- Ram-Man 17:22, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Information about cities and villages are good, information about counties too, but this kind of 'balance' units are not useful, IMO. Also note that this page has zero real links (all links are automatically-created redirects or from the Wikipedia-namespace), and there is zero likelihood of it being linked accidentily either. - Andre Engels 13:47, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, although what this article represents needs to be explained better. The city of Nashville and Davidson County formed a consolidated metopolitan government. The census data currently in Nashville, Tennessee appears to duplicate the census data in Davidson County, Tennessee. I believe this may be a mistake. Davidson County includes several cities besides Nashville. They all have separate municipal governments, but the residents also participate in the consolidated metropolitan government. I don't think the city of Nashville has a separate municipal government. So, the content of this article, Nashville-Davidson (balance), Tennessee, actually represents the census data for the portion of Davidson County that exludes cities other than Nashville. Or in other words, it may be more accurate to have this data in the Nashville article while leaving the Davidson County data as is (and after merging delete this article). However, it may ultimately be less confusing to remove all the census data from the Nashville article and only include links to the Davidson County article for the total data or to this article for the data excluding the other cities. older &ne; wiser 16:04, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep (for now). I suppose I am a bit biased (go figure).  For everyone's information, there are 14 balances out of the 33,832 cities in the database.  If we are voting to delete based on whether we think the these census based articles are useless, then this has already been voted on multiple times and no single article should ever be voted on again because they should all live in die together.  Now, the article in question has already been updated to explain its purpose, HOWEVER, if the article serves no useful purpose and cannot ever be expanded I would consider changing my vote to delete.  Because I don't know the exact specifics about what this balance actually represents, maybe it is silly to have.  But many large cities have sub-articles about the geography or demographics of the city.  Maybe this page should be a sub-article of Nashville, Tennessee?  My point is similar to the one above:  See what census data makes the most sense and adjust articles accordingly.  Don't leap to delete until we understand what the data is. -- Ram-Man 17:22, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep until we can sort out exactly what this means. Likewise with Indianapolis (balance), Indiana. -- Decumanus 20:12, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)
 * Keep. Intro now explains what is being described better. The Rambot articles provide a good framework to build real articles around. Possibly move to Unincorporated areas of Davidson County, Tennessee or Unincorporated areas of greater Nashville-Davidson, Tennessee or something like that, keeping redir so bots will find it for the 2010 census, etc.
 * [from census.gov]"Estimates will be shown for consolidated cities and the consolidated city "balance," which is the consolidated city minus the semi-independent incorporated places located within the consolidated city. Consolidated cities include: Butte-Silver Bow, MT; Athens-Clark County, GA, Augusta-Richmond County, GA, Columbus, GA; Indianapolis, IN; Milford, CT; and Nashville-Davidson, TN." Niteowlneils 20:33, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * A minor point, but in this case the "balance" is NOT unincorporated--it is incorporated as the consolidated city-county metropolitan government--but it is not a part of any of the other incorporated cities in the county. I probably need to rework the intro I added to the article to make that clearer, but putting it into an unincorporated category would not be entirely accurate.
 * Picture it like this: All of the land in Davidson County is part of the consolidated city-county metropolitan government. However, some portions are also within separately incorporated municipalities. So the census bureau created two designations to describe this situation: Nashville-Davidson, Tennessee is everything and Nashville-Davidson (balance), Tennessee is that part which is not also included in one of the other incorporated municipalities. It is a little confusing. When it was created, the metro government was set up with two districts: the "urban services district" and the "general services district" The urban services district was originally the area of the City of Nashville and the general services district was everything else. I believe this "balance" article corresponds to the urban services district (or what was once the city of Nashville). What makes it somewhat more complicated, is that some of these "other" cities in Davidson County also include areas in adjacent counties. So the total population of Davidson County less the population of the (balance) is not going to equal the sum of the populations for the other cities in Davidson County. older &ne; wiser 21:13, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  00:21, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep, of course. The article is factually verifiable and noteworthy.  [[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 22:40, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Redirect. Unlikely to be found where it is. - Scooter 04:55, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.