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 keep. Sandstein 06:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Metropolitan Connecticut (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not really notable, the only link I can find about it is the sole reference in the page. — JJ B^{e rs} 17:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep: This article was created as part of an effort to consolidate the areas defined by the Councils of governments in Connecticut. Since this region is defined as such by the Connecticut Government itself, it is most certainly notable. Quite frankly, this nomination for deletion is ridiculous and is only holding back the effort to consolidate these pages. If this page gets deleted, then let's just delete all the pages of Councils of Government while we're at it. Whoever proposed this deletion clearly did not research this topic enough to understand what this page actually is.-- AirportExpert ( talk) 17:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)AirportExpert reply

That doesn't make a article notable. I can't find any other sources or coverage to this article. I looked it up on Google and can't find any other sources. Plus there is only one, primary source in the article. — JJ B^{e rs} 18:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC) reply

No, there are two, one from the official page and another from the State of Connecticut Website. Connecticut recognizes this entity for what it is.-- AirportExpert ( talk) 18:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)AirportExpert reply

Just because the state of Connecticut recognizes that the region exists doesn't make it notable in any way. Just like why we don't have articles about the Putnam Sewer System. (Also you added that second ref while I was typing my previous reply) — JJ B^{e rs} 18:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Do you actually believe a sewer system for a city of less than 10,000 is comparable to having a page for a region where hundreds of thousands of people live? That's just ridiculous.-- AirportExpert ( talk) 18:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)AirportExpert reply

A region which has less coverage than the sewer system of that city. This region is unnotable and redundant. — JJ B^{e rs} 18:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC) reply

The region itself is extremely notable, there may not be significant coverage regarding the title "Metropolitan Connecticut", but that is only because this title was implemented in 2013.-- AirportExpert ( talk) 18:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)AirportExpert reply

Then it would be a good idea to redirect to the Bridgeport area article which covers nearly the same area. — JJ B^{e rs} 19:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Greater Bridgeport is not a governing body, while Metropolitan CT is. Therefore, there should be two seperate pages to highlight the difference between the two.-- AirportExpert ( talk) 21:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)AirportExpert reply

• Delete - In the course of "a comprehensive analysis of the boundaries of logical planning regions in Connecticut", the state's Office of Policy and Management divided the state into regions, one of them being the "Metropolitan" region. However, because the only place on the internet this new region seems to be mentioned is in that comprehensive analysis, published by the Office of Policy and Management, it most certainly appears to fail both WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND. Magnolia677 ( talk) 18:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep User:Magnolia677 and I have very different readings of WP:GEOLAND. As I have learned only recently, GEOLAND presumes that a place with legal status is notable, and it invokes a requirement for the WP:GNG only for places without legal status. Since legal status is already proven by at least one citation provided in the article, Metropolitan Connecticut should be presumed. Of the four criteria of GEOLAND, only one is applicable to this article. Even so, arguably the subject meets the tougher standard GNG. I had never heard of Metropolitan Connecticut (aka MetroCOG) until thirty minutes ago, but this article has significant coverage of the subject: [1]. These articles include mentions of MetroCOG: [2] and [3]. Finally, Connecticut does not have county governments, so an agency at a level between municipal governments and the state would appear to have great importance. Oldsanfelipe ( talk) 21:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC) edited once by Oldsanfelipe ( talk) 21:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC) reply

The argument of the user just above makes sense to me. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 22:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Oldsanfelipe, thank you for finding additional sources. You mentioned this source, which substantiates that the "Metropolitan Council of Governments (MetroCOG)" exists, but asserts that MetroCOG is "a Regional/Metropolitan Planning Organization". As well, this source, which is cited in the article, states that the Connecticut Metropolitan Council of Governments is "an organization guided by a cooperative partnership between the Region's six member municipalities" to "identify a range of projects, funding opportunities and best practices that are strategic to achieving our shared vision for the Region". This certainly makes MetroCOG appear to be a government planning agency of some sort. I'm not sure how these sources support that it is "a geographic region", as the Wikipedia article about it asserts. Just because a planning agency like MetroCOG (or the local sewer system) publishes a map showing it's jurisdictional boundaries, does not make it a geographic entity, per WP:GEOLAND. (Nor should it be added to the infoboxes of every city and town within this planning agencies boundaries, as the article's creator has been doing.) Magnolia677 ( talk) 23:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC) reply

There's also an argument as to whether it's actually a "legally defined" place. SportingFlyer talk 23:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 23:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 23:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment I largely agree with Magnolia677's interpretation of this, but part of the problem is the title of the article appears to be wrong - I have no comment on whether "MetroCOG" is notable - looks like a lot of primary sources - but "Metropolitan Connecticut" is clearly wrong. SportingFlyer talk 23:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• I have suggested a name change at Talk:Metropolitan Connecticut. I edited the article while adding a secondary source. Oldsanfelipe ( talk) 09:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I started out feeling negatively about MetroCOG because the only thing I knew about it was it starting the (doomed to fail) bike sharing program. However, as I started searching I found that it does have significant activities, including trying for county-designation. I have so far added three different sourced points, and there is more that could be expanded upon... it should now pass wp:N. However I also think that the article does need to be renamed, but that should remain a separate discussion. Markvs88 ( talk) 14:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep but rename to Metrocog (I'll vote in the RM); this seems to be a newly created county-equivalent governmental organization in Greater Bridgeport. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 18:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. [4] - hard to argue that. Szzuk ( talk) 19:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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.