Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upstate Connecticut

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. Akirn (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upstate Connecticut

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

Article is about a geographic term that does not appear to exist. Contrary to the lead sentence that states "Upstate Connecticut is a term commonly used to refer to Connecticut's rural northern counties," the use of this term appears to be limited to Wikipedia, a fictional movie, a few random statements on webpages (mostly non-RS).
In August 2009, I added the notability template to the article, with the note "I don't see evidence that this terminology is truly established by a reliable source." Subsequently, a map that was formerly in the article was removed with the edit summary "Map is not based on fact, rather personal opinion", and there has been some discussion on the talk page, but no one has supplied nontrivial sources to substantiate the use of the term. The term gets a lot of ghits, but most are links to the plot or reviews of the movie The Haunting in Connecticut, which seems to be the source of this term.
It's high time to remove the article, before this term enters common usage because people believe the Wikipedia article. Orlady (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions.
Delete Because Connecticut's longest axis is east-west, and the state is pretty small, it's highly unlikey that "Upstate Connecticut" would develop as a geographic term. Its width north to south is only about 50 miles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really in common use locally. --Polaron | Talk 23:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not in common use and doesn't geographically make sense. I'm sympathetic to articles that need to be improved but the underlying subject is problematic here.RevelationDirect (talk) 04:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The term is not widely used, if it is even used at all. I have certainly never heard of this alleged and poorly defined region of the state until now. Also, for an article that is only two paragraphs long, it fails to definitively identify the exact boundaries of this purported region and leaves much to readers’ interpretations. It uses phrases such as "This usually includes ...," "On occasion ...," "sometimes," and "In popular culture ..." to try to identify speculative boundary extensions under certain situations, further aiding in confusion. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This term is something someone made up one day. I grew up on the CT border with MA and have not once, never, heard anyone refer to the region as "upstate CT." Furthermore, there are very few reliable sources that substantiate this non-existant geographical definition. BWH76 (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have lived in southwestern CT my entire life and not once heard this term in the news, publications or in passing. It strikes me as an attempt to match some other more legitimate regional terms like "Gold Coast" or "Tri-State Area". If the term was identified as realistic I would happily lend my support to develop it. dtgriffith (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2010 (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.