Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rest of Virginia


 * 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 Merge to Virginia. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 14:54Z 

Rest of Virginia

 * — (View AfD)

This is probably not a good article for Wikipedia to have. It's like having an article about E. Coli and then another about "Rest of the Bacteria on Earth". I tried to start a discussion about merging this article with Virginia, but it didn't seem to come to any solid consensus. Takeel 14:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge anything verifiable to Virginia, seems there are some identifiable trends which create a distinction, but I don't see an entire article here. Only source is a couple of Wash. Post diagrams, not an article.  Dei zio  talk 15:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Northern Virginia, not Virginia. &mdash;  Da rk Sh ik ar i   talk /contribs  22:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the opposite of Northern Virginia. There's a Southern Virginia article, but it appears to represent a narrower area than the Rest of Virginia article.  Dei zio  talk 22:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: This term has been used prominently in the Washington Post; entire articles have been dedicated to the differences between NoVA and RoVA. It has become a very important term in the press and in the Commonwealth's politics (especially in Northern Virginia). It's very useful to have an article explaining the difference between RoVA and NoVA when the two are brought up. If Wolf is not re-elected for Senate in 2008, the term will be even more common. I can, however, see this being merged with Northern Virginia, but only if the alternative is deletion. Thomasmallen 03:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Find a few more reliable sources that prove it's a real, defined concept, add them to the article and I'd vote keep.  Dei zio  talk 03:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Deiz; having only one source from the Washington Post makes the term look like it was made up for that one article or is limited only to the Washington Post. One or two other sources would help determine notability.  If these sources can be found and added I'd support a keep. --The Way 08:07, 24 December 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.