Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belvidere, South Australia

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 Reorganize pages as proposed by the nominator. Despite Aoziwe's input, consensus seems to be that we don't want to list Hundred of Belvidere in a "Belvidere, South Australia" dab page, which is therefore redundant. Sandstein 11:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Belvidere, South Australia[edit]

[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)

This is a case of WP:TWODABS. Hundred of Belvidere doesn't really belong, and Belvidere, South Australia (Alexandrina) should be moved here as the primary topic, with the historic locality hatnoted. "(Alexandrina)" is an odd disambiguation, and the article doesn't even explain where it comes from. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both Belvidere, South Australia (Alexandrina) and the Belvidere, South Australia (Light)redirect, and retarget Belvidere, South Australia to Belvidere#Australia as an incomplete disambiguation. WP:NCAUST does not explain how to disambiguate further when "Town, State/Territory" is insufficient, whether to use the LGA or another term. I have added a mention of Alexandrina to that article to explain it. PamD 08:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Merge if required and) Redirect to Belvidere#Australia as WP:INCOMPDAB. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support resolution exactly as proposed by the nominator, i.e., move Belvidere, South Australia (Alexandrina) to Belvidere, South Australia. The rest can be accomplished with a hatnote. A real and current place name should prevail over a technical jurisdictional designation. Note that long-term page views indicate that the town gets more page views than all other terms combined (including the disambiguation page), and no evidence has been provided to suggest that the "Hundred of Belvidere" is referred to as "Belvidere, South Australia". BD2412 T 19:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm from South Australia, and couldn't work out what on earth was going on here enough to close and action the consensus above. Hopefully someone with more brain power can come and close & action this! Daniel (talk) 10:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The proposal on the table is basically to move Belvidere, South Australia (Alexandrina) over Belvidere, South Australia, which I support. BD2412 T 07:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support what BD2412 has proposed. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FEI There are two quite separate places in South Australia that could potentially be referred to as "Belvidere". There is:

Hundred of Belvidere, to the north of Adelaide, in the Light Regional Council LGA
Belvidere, to the south of Adelaide, in the Alexandrina Council LGA

I cannot find any contemporaneous reference to Hundred of Belvidere which does not use the prefixes of "Hundred of". But, there is some reasonable evidence that it was referred to historically as just "Belvidere". See for example here and here. And, there is some evidence that just "Belvidere" is used to refer to places and buildings and facilites in Hundred of Belvidere, for example see Belvidere Anglican Church
There is also this page, Belvidere, South Australia (disambiguation), which redirects to Belvidere, South Australia
There is also this page, Belvidere
Because of the non trivial historical use of "Belvidere" to refer to Hundred of Belvidere, I am inclined to think that the disambiguation page should remain but it has only two entries:

Belvidere, South Australia

Belvidere is the name of two localities in South Australia.

Belvidere, South Australia (Alexandrina), in the Alexandrina Council local government area
Historically, Hundred of Belvidere, cadastral division in Light Regional Council local government area

The page Belvidere, South Australia (Light) remains and redirects to Hundred of Belvidere (not to the current St Johns, South Australia)
The page Belvidere, South Australia (Alexandrina) remains as is, but with a hat note pointing to Hundred of Belvidere
There need to be reciprocal links between Hundred of Belvidere and St Johns, South Australia and explaining how St Jonhs was carved out of Hundred of Belvidere, and these two articles rationalised to remove the confusing overlap.
The entry of Belvidere, South Australia (Light) gets removed from Belvidere
The page Belvidere, South Australia (disambiguation) gets deleted.

I am from the eastern seaboard of Australia, so I could have it all wrong !?

Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(reply only - my !vote is WP:INCOMPDAB above) - You have done a fair summary (even though I don't know what "FEI" means). There was also District Council of Belvidere which hasn't been written yet. It was established in 1866 and merged into the District Council of Kapunda in 1932. Its area might have been coincident with the hundred. See Talk:St Johns, South Australia for some of the previous conversation. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FEI FEI == for everyone's information. Cheers. Aoziwe (talk) 09:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:16, 18 December 2021 (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.