Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australian repeated place names

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Keep as this seems like this is heading for WP:SNOW. Although I still believe it needs better sources to prove notability, others seem to disagree so I'll leave it at that. Tavix |  Talk  02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian repeated place names[edit]

List of Australian repeated place names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete Delete This is a trivial/unencyclopedic list of a non-notable intersection. What is so notable about the fact that there are ~35 place names what have doubled words in it? Tavix |  Talk  20:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sydney? Sydney? What's this all about? It's not unique to Australia, as witness Walla Walla and Pago Pago and Sing Sing and New York, New York. I think that a list of repeated place names in general would be encyclopedic, in that it would fall under the subject of the etymology of place names in general. No opinion one way or another on this particular list. Mandsford (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New York, New York isn't in this category, that's the city and state. Walla Walla or Ty Ty are more like what you're looking for. Drawn Some (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you mean that there's a state called New York and a city called New York? When did they start doing that? Mandsford (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it original research to look for sources that explain the function of reduplication in Australian locality naming? Toponomy is a valid field of research and who is to say that there is not previously published thought on this topic. It's only OR if editors choose to make their own assumptions about reduplication based on their own interpretation of the data in the list. I don't think that was the intention the editor meant in the sentence you quoted. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with your rationale is that you are assuming that there is some published material of this subject. Have you gone out and actually done the research? I have yet to find good sources that prove why this list is notable.
  • And likewise, you make the opposite assumption that the sources don't exist. As mentioned, I am not calling for original research, I am inviting people to find those sources. Eauhomme (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean sources like this one for example. That was a 30 second google search, heaven knows what one would find if one was to visit a library! -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And there's more at here! -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A general list might be an idea, but the motivation for this list seems to be original research, and it doesn't really contribute much as it is. Rebecca (talk) 03:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just for interest's sake, the Australian folk singer Greg Champion released a song called Don't call Wagga Wagga, Wagga! -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unencyclopedic, trivial and impinges on OR. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way is it unencyclopedic other than in the sense of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? It is a list of place names derived by reduplication which is a common theme in Australian toponomy, especially in names derived from Australian Aboriginal languages. This connection is not trivial, but one of encyclopedic relevance.
  • WP:IDONTLIKEIT has nothing to do with my vote. The list is purely trivia and the claims you have just stated are not even mentioned—let alone referenced—in the article. The article is comprised solely of a list that provides no information on why the subject is notable, and many of the place names have no information for their meaning. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. I believe even if this article was fixed up, it would still remain unencyclopedic trivia; hence the basis for my vote. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OSE? Please base your rationale off of this article and not other random repeated word articles that are actually notable. Also, who said encyclopedias are fun, that is impossible! (failed attempt at humor) Tavix |  Talk  11:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, "other stuff exists", the most overused allegation on Wikipedia. Did I use that as a rationale to keep? NO! Anyone who says "off of" has no understanding of Aussie Aussie Aussie, Oi Oi Oi anyway. Lighten up ... WWGB (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure being fun is a reason to keep either. You used OSE to suggest deletion for a notable article that has nothing to do with the notability for this article. Tavix |  Talk  21:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your proof being...? Remember this isn't a vote but a discussion. Tavix |  Talk  21:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Naming conventions and aboriginal names in particular are the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources as here [1] mate. If you don't like the focus just on double names you could merge, but seems a reasonable enough subtopic to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Comment' Where's your proof that the article is mere trivia? I have pointed out above the reasons why this is not a trivial intersection despite the claims in your nomination. IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Trivial listcruft that doesn't belong here. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So far is informative but needs work. Keep on basis it definitely has potential. Donama (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is similar in intent and no more trivial than other place name articles such as -land, -hou, -onna, -ovo/-evo etc. I am still puzzled at the insistence that the process by which localities obtain names is not a subject worthy of encyclopedic treatment. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some comments in this afd simply not worth responding to or engaging with - duplicated names in Australian indigenous place names are a notable and well documented feature in the Australian landscape - that should be accepted and understood SatuSuro 06:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - agree with SatuSoro's comments above. Dan arndt (talk) 07:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepKeep per SatuSuro and Mattinbgn ... it's a linguistic feature of Aboriginal languages and therefore part of the culture rather than simply pertaining to place names. Plenty of songs and jokes about it. Orderinchaos 13:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I fail to understand any of the arguments for deletion. This is indeed notable and well documented. Regarding the discussion of fun, I sometimes find we ignore our readers. This is is just the kind of article that many readers will enjoy and find useful. I remember as a kid when I was recovering from a bad illness spending every day browsing through the "Children's Encyclopedia" and coming across lots of amazing material. That gave me my love of encyclopedias. This article could give that love to someone else. Think carefully before deleting interesting material. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:59, 19 May 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Australian_repeated_place_names&oldid=1137991139"