Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T3S R2W, Michigan

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 DELETE

We don't need a page for every single township defined by the Public Land Survey System. These are geographic grids that are laid out algorithmically and therefore are entirely unremarkable and non-unique. (Should this have gone to SD?) - Kbh3rd 23:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete, not much can be said about these in Michigan. Rmhermen 23:34, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete, survey townships were given a names for a reason. This is of no use in a general encyclopedia. older &ne; wiser 00:50, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete: I thought at first that this was a Leet town. Unsearchable geographical entity. Geogre 01:10, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep as redirect - who knows what someone may google for... The content is already merged to the related article. -- Netoholic @ 02:53, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)


 * I see you've redirected it. Apparently this one coincides with a civil township, which is a different beast altogether from a survey township, and which probably rates an entry. The Township article says that there is a one-to-one correspondence of civil and survey townships in some states, but they're still separate entities.  IMHO (though I won't argue beyond this paragraph) there is not a need even for the redirect here; that the political unit exists doesn't mean that we need an article or redirect for every 36 square miles of the whole state of Michigan, up to 2,691 entries of T1S/R1W, T1S/R2W, T1S/R3W, &c!  Then start on the other 49 states...166,241 for the whole country if it were evenly divided into 36 mi2 survey townships.  Let the civil township articles, where they exist, mention which survey townships they correspond to, if any, but leave it at that. - Kbh3rd 04:16, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * This looks like a one-off made by an IP editor. I doubt its a major concern either way.  I prefer to keep redirects to discourage re-creation. -- Netoholic @ 04:23, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't want to think about how many more of these there are. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. Let's not make a precedent.  RickK 05:58, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. Ambi 08:55, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, do not redirect. BTW, the redirect isn't working (did the page move again?).  SWAdair | Talk  11:50, 16 Sep 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.