Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Island province (2nd nomination)

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Island province (2nd nomination)

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

violates WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, cobbled together Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the fact that the creator was able to find the term "island province" in a single source (the first reference does not use the term and the third is a dead link) does not mean the term in notable. The term seems self-evident, and the "rules" ascribed to it appear to have been made up. ubiquity (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#OR. Stuff like this requires scholarly sources to define the concept. I am unable to find any. I also don't see any value of keeping this kind of unencyclopaedic content on Wikipedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:V; no RS sources and smacks of OR. Kierzek (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2016 (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.