Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spenser Ecological District


 * 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. Redirecting to "ecological region" would be perfectly reasonable&mdash;if that article gets created.  Swarm   X 05:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Spenser Ecological District

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete. There is no designation of Spenser Ecological District but there is a Spenser Ecological Region. I am embarking on a series of articles for the ecological districts but I do not consider the need for ecological region articles at this point. I cannot think of anywhere to merge or redirect the article. See also Ecological districts of New Zealand. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect Good to hear that you want to get articles up for NZ's ecological regions. I would suggest that the term 'region' is easily confused with 'district', hence this should become a redirect to the Spenser Ecological Region article.  Schwede 66  19:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is little enough demand (IMO) for the district article let alone the regional articles. If there is going to be a redirect, which I do not agree with, it should got to Ecological districts of New Zealand. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect Support redirect as the terms 'region' and 'district' are sometimes confused. NealeFamily (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to what? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as a redirect to a new article of Spenser Ecological Region,  Plausible redirect. Obvious need for an article, as the nom says himself.  DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Need to create an article before you can redirect to it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect -- Redirect to Ecological districts of New Zealand as a deletion alternative. The article under discussion here does not meet WP:GNG as things stand. If a more appropriate target article is written, the redirect could be updated. Hoppingalong (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I cannot understand why deletion is not seen as a viable option? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I do think deletion is a viable option. I agree this article does not pass notability and should not remain. That said, I would not object to a redirect from any of the ecological districts to the Ecological districts of New Zealand article. So, I do not object to that in this case. We would essentially be deleting the aritcle and creating a redirect. If it is not actually one of the Ecological districts of New Zealand, that is a different story and I would not favor a redirect because that would be misleading and not allowed according to WP:R Nos. 2 & 5. Hoppingalong (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment -- switching to straight Delete -- I looked at this again and realized--as I should have before--that it matters that the Spenser Ecological Region is not one of the an Ecological districts of New Zealand (as Alan noted before). I think a redirect from the various regions to the Ecological districts of New Zealand would be ok (just) pending something better as the article at least mentions the regions in reference to the districts. If an article on the Spenser Ecological Region is ever created, I also think that would be close enough to redirect this article to, and I would then agree with DGG and Schwede66. Since it hasn't, I am not willing to prejudge whether such an article is needed or meets notability, etc. As WP is now, redirecting a non-existent district to a discussion of districts could be misleading, or at least confuse an editor who searched for this and came upon a list of districts only to not find this district. I now no longer think a redirect would be a good or useful thing with any existing targets. If that changes, it is easy enough to create a redirect then. Meanwhile, I now think the article should be deleted. Hoppingalong (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2012 (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.