Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beggan Beggan, New South Wales

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 Harden, New South Wales. I'm extrapolating slightly in that there is a meta consensus that being listed doesn't confer notability so the arguments suggesting a redirect are the most policy based and also work with the general way that we handle barely notable/perma-stubs in an appropriatly aggregated location Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beggan Beggan, New South Wales[edit]

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

Beggan Beggan is an unbounded locality within the bounded locality of Harden, New South Wales about which there is nothing to say beyond the current stub. A redirect to Harden will suffice. Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK#1: "nominator...fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging". Colonel Warden (talk) 06:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete 1 gnews hit back in 1887, [1]. LibStar (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, verifiable, real place. Additionally, the "Beggan Beggan Homestead and Group buildings" are on the heritage register ([2]), so there's room for further expansion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment (by nominator) as mentioned in the nomination it does exist but is an unbounded locality within the bounded locality of Harden, New South Wales about which there is nothing to say. If anyone feels there is an article needed about Beggan Beggan Homestead and Group buildings (not a locality) then it may (in the fullness of time) be created as such Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Nothing of note there, hardly any Google hits and part of Harden. It's rather difficult to see how this article could be expanded beyond a single sentence. --wintonian ^talk 03:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Lankiveil and the provided source.--Pink Bull 14:30, 1 June 2011 (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.