Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rest of Groningen


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Rest of Groningen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Permastub. The label "Rest of Groningen" is a transparent description used in the list of COROP regions; no separate article can ever add information other than in the COROP context Imaginatorium (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete- These articles are a terrible idea. Terrible. You can't just find some combination of words in a reference somewhere and decide that's a topic. Reyk YO! 05:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete all of the mass-created COROP articles. Such statistical areas are not automatically notable and may nevertheless be covered in the main article. Reywas92Talk 07:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all. WP:GEOLAND explicitly states that census tracts are usually not considered notable. So if there is no claim of notability in the article, it doesn't belong. SpinningSpark 11:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Worthless deletion nomination Nominator claims: The label "Rest of Groningen" is a transparent description used in the list of COROP regions. It is not a trasparent description.  It is also NUTS-3 region too: I have no idea what above wiki users are doing by recommending to delete without even searching what it is.  This is non-professional.  At least try to undestand what it is (https://www.regioatlas.nl/indelingen/indelingen_indeling/t/nuts_3_regio_s)    (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=42UkDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48#v=onepage&q&f=false) Shevonsilva (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Being a NUTS division does not mean it should have a page. Your rationale appears to be an WP:INHERITED argument. In fact, as I stated above, GEOLAND says that it probably shouldn't have an article because the purpose of the NUTS divisions is primarily only for the gathering of statistics.  NUTS divisions that also correspond to an official political or administrative boundary are going to be notable, but then they probably already have articles in which it can be mentioned that they are a NUTS division. SpinningSpark 21:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all per WP:GEOLAND, which explicitly does not apply to census tracts, which is what I assume COROP regions are in the Netherlands. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as not meeting WP:GEO and for reasons given above, i note that the article does not provide the reader with any additional information that isn't already at COROP (apart from references that can be added to the parent article), any other COROP articles like this should also be deleted. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.