Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Municipal utility district

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 merge to District. With appreciation for Eastmain's efforts, while this Afd is being closed as a merge (given Bearian's ambivalence with either choice), if any editor wishes to re-create this article with the references provided, there's no prejudice against that (and against an early re-nomination thereon) (non-admin closure) Lourdes 08:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal utility district

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Unreferenced essay Rathfelder (talk) 09:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into District; pace the adding of refernces, but I'm not sure those sources are all realible, and do not indicate that the subject deserves a stand-alone article. They also do not suggest that a MUD is found outside of the US (or possibly even Texas). As such, the information, such as it is is, would sit quite neatly in the US section of the parent article, which already states that "There are several types of districts in the United States"—of which a MUD is just one—and even goes on to acknowledge that there are "many types of special-purpose districts with limited powers of local government. School districts are the most common, but other types of districts include...utility districts" (my emph.) So the merge target is ready and waiting for the couple of sentences that this would add. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Happy for it to be merged as suggested. Rathfelder (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I'm also find with a merger. Bearian (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a purely USA concept I think the article should say so. But I'm happy for the article to survive now it has references.Rathfelder (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - there are sufficient sources for what it is, but I feel it fails WP:DICDEF (this is not helped by nature of the latter 2 sources). It would need some sourced content beyond the nature of what it is to avoid this problem. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge away onto "District." The remark about subject being no more than a dictionary entry is to the point. No independent notability beyond subject being a common term. -The Gnome (talk) 08:06, 28 July 2018 (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.