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. Sandstein 07:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piedmont bioregion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Found a few sources with nothing more than a passing mention, not enough to write an article on. Also, am not sure what direction this was going in with a "Local Currencies" heading. Rusf10 (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Some sources are promising, but they do not expand beyond a few sentences on what this is supposed to be, so SIGCOV is lacking. For the record, the "Local Currencies" heading is a reference to "PLENTY", a non-notable monetary system proposed by several NC Piedmont area communities after the Great Recession, not natural/environmentally related at all. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/merge This seems to be a sub-division of Piedmont (United States) similar to Piedmont region of Virginia. They all need work rather than deletion per policy WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." See Field Guide to the Piedmont to get you started. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Andrew Davidson:A search of the source you provided shows its does not even use the term "bioregion". If that is the best source you can come up with, you have proved my point about this being insignificant. I also would like to point out that your source specifies the area it covers as between New York City and Montgomery, Alabama whereas this article defines the region as only 4 southern states.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:NOTDIC, we are not looking for exact word matches; we are concerned with the nature of the topic and that source is relevant. For another source, see Piedmont Ecoregion. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • While we need an article on Piedmont region of North Carolina, this is not that. Also, that first book you linked to is about the entire piedmont, not " the piedmont areas of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and northern Georgia as defined by the principals of bioregionalism" which seems totally contrived based off the scant source material. The existing Piedmont USA article should suffice for that material, there is nothing useful here. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The second source I provided says that "The Piedmont Ecoregion, which lies in the area between the flat coastal plains to the southeast and the Appalachian Mountains to the northwest, covers 165,460 km2 (63,884 mi2) across parts of five states (Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia) (fig. 1)." It calls the more northerly equivalent the "Northern Piedmont Ecoregion". So, we see that there's some complex nomenclature here and it seems that different people use it in different ways. Our job is to make sense of this, as it's notable. Drive-by deletion is not helpful in this as it disrupts activity by discouraging contributions and obfuscating the content. This is contrary to our editing policy which states "Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts." We're still in the "few random facts" early stages but that's not a reason to delete. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The last non-bot edit to this article was in 2016. There's been 30 edits or so to this article throughout its entire existence, most of which were made over ten years ago. What "contributions" are we "discouraging" and, considering the pitiful state of the article, what content are we obfuscating? Piedmont (United States) actually contains more information about the natural condition of this region than this article. We have WP:NOPAGE for when a notable topic can't support its own page. I honestly do think there is potential for an article to be created here about a piedmont ecoregion one day. But that seems pretty far off rn. The "bioregion" doesn't exist in RS, and this article is in such a pathetic state it serves as the perfect example for WP:TNT. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think it's important to understand the article bioregionalism which is a philosophy on how to best organize human activity as coined by 1970s era environmentalists who are not scientists, rather a leftist/socialist re-order society around the environment philosophy. "Piedmont bioregion" only makes sense within the context of the bioregion philosophy. --GreenC 21:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GreenC:So what you saying is that "bioregion" and "ecoregion" are not the same thing?--Rusf10 (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not seeing enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show this meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:27, 19 May 2021 (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.