Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tawhai Hill
I disagree that these articles meet the GNG per TonyTheTiger and Schwede66. But even if it does meet the GNG, that does not guarantee inclusion as a stand-alone article, and I think the benefits of a merge outweigh the benefits of multiple stubs. The GNG creates a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should have a stand-alone article; from the |GNG: {{tqi|"A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that |Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"}}. These both claim notability due to a single event (a renaming) by decision of a singular group, since the articles provide nothing more than geographic data and two separate discussions of the same renaming, it seems like they are best discussed together in an article that provides the context for the renaming rather than having multiple stubs on geographic locations ostensibly notable only for having their name changed. From : {{tqi|"Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page...Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub."}} Whether that page they be merged to is New Zealand Geographic Board or Canterbury, New Zealand#Geography, I'm ambivalent, but lean more towards NZ Geographic Board per Schwede66
— User:Wugapodes, 00:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Stance: merge
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:IINFO||WP:N (Wikipedia:Notability)