File:White x in red rounded square.svg Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
:The result of the discussion was delete
. We can recreate the redirect when someone writes about this place in some article about a broader geographical area. Deryck C. 14:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- {{no redirect|1 = Stephensons Landing, Maine }} → :Pemadumcook Chain of Lakes (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephensons_Landing,_Maine&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2019-09-26&end=2019-10-25&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Stephensons_Landing%2C_Maine stats]) [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Stephensons Landing, Maine|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Stephensons Landing, Maine closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Stephensons Landing, Maine|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Stephensons Landing, Maine closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Stephensons Landing, Maine|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Stephensons Landing, Maine closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
Request deletion of this newly created redirect. The target does not cover the topic, and I think further think it probably should not be changed to do so. I notice that the redirect was first set up to redirect to "Pemadumcook Lake" which is presumably among the Pemadumcook Chain of lakes. My guess is that Stephensons Landing is a small current or former community; the current target is about a series of lakes, not about any communities near them. It seems best to have a redlink for Stephensons Landing, Maine, wherever it is mentioned, indicating properly that an article about the topic is wanted, would probably be acceptable. Doncram (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Also I request deletion for newly created redirects Amgajejus Camps, Maine and Amgajejus Camps, which both redirect to the same Pemadumcook Chain of Lakes topic, which does not cover them. All three redirects were recently created by User:Swampyank. I think that education of that editor (and maybe me too) about when redirects are appropriate may be helpful. --Doncram (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Maybe the first redirect should be retargeted, to an article where it can/should be mentioned? Per [https://maine.hometownlocator.com/me/piscataquis/stephensons-landing.cfm], "Stephensons Landing (GNIS FID: 579740) is a populated place located within the Unorganized Territory of Northeast Piscataquis, a minor civil division (MCD) of Piscataquis County." --Doncram (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
:It was my understanding that the Stephenson's Landing is a beach on Pemadumcook Lake where the archaeological site was located.Swampyank (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
::Hi Swampyank, there may be a beach there, but Stephenson's Landing is more likely significant as a populated place. In general in Wikipedia we can cover any populated place as Wikipedia is a "gazetteer" about them (i.e. it is willing to cover all of them, no matter how minor, unlike Wikipedia's guidelines/policies about coverage of schools, or of beaches, say). It would probably be justifiable to have a separate article about this as a populated place. But as I have observed in numerous AFDs about very minor populated places, we don't have to create or keep separate articles for all populated places...they can be covered in higher-level articles, e.g. town- or county-level that list their minor communities. Here I think it is best to cover the topic in the Northeast Piscataquis article about the unincorporated area. It would be natural to cover it there, as just a mention and perhaps coordinates, or allowing for expansion with a few facts such as population. If/when there is too much info about it then it could potentially be split off to a separate article. It is more natural to let this process go on within an article about a larger level populated area and the populated places it includes, than in the article about the chain of lakes, IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Per WP:GEOLAND, if this is a populated place, it could support its own article. In the meantime, pointing it anywhere that doesn't discuss it isn't doing anyone any favors. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2019 (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.
