The result was delete. It took a while, but it appears we have a rough consensus to delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
This region, as defined in the article, seems to be an invention by prominently mentioned "development consortium" GPS:45:93. Other than their brochure, only one of the cited sources even mentions "East Central Minnesota", and it's unclear whether they mean the same region. I couldn't find significant references to those five counties as "East Central Minnesota" outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. The local library organization and labour council use the term "East Central Minnesota", but they don't mean these five counties (and they don't agree with each other, either), so there's no indication that this is a well-defined region. The content of the article is mostly a bunch of lists and statistics that may be correct, but grouping them in this way is original research. Huon ( talk) 21:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Keep - This region is specifically defined in many places, most notably by the State of Minnesota here. Places in proximity to the region or adjacent to the region are at times loosely and incorrectly referred to as in East Central Minnesota, but locals know which five counties are in actuality in the region.-- John2690-john2690 ( talk) 03:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Keep - Please see Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, East Central Energy Coop, East Central Economic Development, Habitat.org. It goes on forever, but East Central Minnesota is not an "invention". Also see Texas Hill Country, Southern California, Mississippi Delta, and on and on. Do not merge. — Maile ( talk) 15:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Weak merge with Geography of Minnesota. I haven't run into anything significant describing this region that wasn't related to a watershed or flooding. Consider also merging Central Minnesota, which also suffers from a lack of content.-- Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 16:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Userfy. Do not keep this in the Main article space. It currently fails WP:GNG. WP:USERFYIT until significant coverage occurs. Pontificalibus finds that sources ... don't represent significant coverage in reliable sources. Unable to locate better sources, I agree with Pontificalibus. I encountered the same as Molandfreak, finding (nothing) significant describing this region and I support Huon's finding that removing all WP:SYN content would amount to blanking the page. -- Paleorthid ( talk) 21:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. It took a while, but it appears we have a rough consensus to delete. Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
This region, as defined in the article, seems to be an invention by prominently mentioned "development consortium" GPS:45:93. Other than their brochure, only one of the cited sources even mentions "East Central Minnesota", and it's unclear whether they mean the same region. I couldn't find significant references to those five counties as "East Central Minnesota" outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. The local library organization and labour council use the term "East Central Minnesota", but they don't mean these five counties (and they don't agree with each other, either), so there's no indication that this is a well-defined region. The content of the article is mostly a bunch of lists and statistics that may be correct, but grouping them in this way is original research. Huon ( talk) 21:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Keep - This region is specifically defined in many places, most notably by the State of Minnesota here. Places in proximity to the region or adjacent to the region are at times loosely and incorrectly referred to as in East Central Minnesota, but locals know which five counties are in actuality in the region.-- John2690-john2690 ( talk) 03:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Keep - Please see Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, East Central Energy Coop, East Central Economic Development, Habitat.org. It goes on forever, but East Central Minnesota is not an "invention". Also see Texas Hill Country, Southern California, Mississippi Delta, and on and on. Do not merge. — Maile ( talk) 15:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Weak merge with Geography of Minnesota. I haven't run into anything significant describing this region that wasn't related to a watershed or flooding. Consider also merging Central Minnesota, which also suffers from a lack of content.-- Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 16:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Userfy. Do not keep this in the Main article space. It currently fails WP:GNG. WP:USERFYIT until significant coverage occurs. Pontificalibus finds that sources ... don't represent significant coverage in reliable sources. Unable to locate better sources, I agree with Pontificalibus. I encountered the same as Molandfreak, finding (nothing) significant describing this region and I support Huon's finding that removing all WP:SYN content would amount to blanking the page. -- Paleorthid ( talk) 21:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)