From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
|
|
|||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
|
:”’Keep:”’ user: dclemens’ arguments are sound, and have convinced me. My own efforts to have the article deleted were in error. I think it’s okay to close this discussion as “keep” and move on. [[User:Whumbler|Whumbler]] ([[User talk:Whumbler|talk]]) 20:17, 18 January 2026 (UTC) |
:”’Keep:”’ user: dclemens’ arguments are sound, and have convinced me. My own efforts to have the article deleted were in error. I think it’s okay to close this discussion as “keep” and move on. [[User:Whumbler|Whumbler]] ([[User talk:Whumbler|talk]]) 20:17, 18 January 2026 (UTC) |
||
|
* ”’Keep:”’ per dclemens. Edit: actually looks like the deletion discussion was closed, so I will see if I can remove the notice on original page. [[User:Caleb Stanford|Caleb Stanford]] ([[User talk:Caleb Stanford|talk]]) 04:58, 24 January 2026 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 04:58, 24 January 2026
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The concept of a “Megaregion” is put forward by the Regional Plan Association, a non-profit think-tank focused on urban planning. The concept is not in recent circulation, RPA itself has produced little recent scholarship to uphold the concept, and few outside the RPA appear to have shown interest in it.
Given that an encyclopedia’s end is to share knowledge about publicly relevant and mutually recognized phenomena, including an article on this pet concept of the RPA’s seems out of place, and even comprises, I think, promotion for RPA, who may be the ones behind the authorship of this very article.
Unless someone can produce evidence showing that the concept of the “megaregion” has seen popular uptake by institutions or actors not affiliated with RPA, this article should be deleted.
- Keep: The concept of the “megaregion” is frequently used in scholarly literature well beyond a single association (see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). The specific topic in the United States is also discussed in-depth in scholarly sources ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]). With notability established, additional concerns about this article should be addressed through routine editorial processes, since deletion is not cleanup. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:22, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
- Keep: user: dclemens’ arguments are sound, and have convinced me. My own efforts to have the article deleted were in error. I think it’s okay to close this discussion as “keep” and move on. Whumbler (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
