Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Villages (Southern Highlands, 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 keep. — Cirt (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Villages (Southern Highlands, New South Wales)[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. This seems a loose term that only locals use but lacks third party coverage for it to be of encyclopaedic value especially for use wider in surrounding areas or New South Wales.[1]. nor is it a term officially accepted by the Geographic Names Board of NSW. trove search doesn't come up with much either. LibStar (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - read the article - All of the Northern Villages made up the previous Mittagong (Natai) Shire., look at the template at the bottom of the article - effectively the template and the article tie together, a small bit of judicious editing could simply establish that the article is an aka for the former shire - which in itself was notable and indeed it is well worth clarifying. Deletion is not the way to go with problem, some careful editing would be much better. Satu Suro 01:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

do we have reliable sources for this? glad you can join me again in an AfD. LibStar (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being so civil and nicey - this was a nuisance afd and you should admit it - I am not glad to see afds like this - just because you read one way does not mean there are other ways of tackling the problem - if you cannot think laterally I am not here to teach you how to do so. Satu Suro 01:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

do we have reliable sources to cover this unreferenced article? LibStar (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not replying due to your message at my talk page Satu Suro 01:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it's a legitimate question to establish notability for this subject. but you have the right not to respond. regards. LibStar (talk) 01:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article might not adequately express it yet, but these villages were one of the earliest outlying areas from Sydney settled after European settlement in Australia Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that may be true but where are the sources to establish notability for this term. LibStar (talk) 10:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "term that only locals use" - the problem with that is? It is a term widely used (even if only by locals), it is verifiable and it is encyclopedic. The relevance of the GNB NSW search is a mystery to me - searching the same database for "Riverina" does not show any such place either! I get the same result for Macquarie Towns too!! GNB NSW is a good tool for searching a specific location but not so much for things that are more social constructs (but still real, verifiable and encyclopedic) such as this one. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

still no sources provided from 3 keep votes. Riverina is widely used term around Australia, enter it in gnews or trove. trove.nla.gov.au/result?q=riverina&l-availability=y Just because other geographic terms exist doesn't mean this one is valid. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 11:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Riverina" and "Macquarie Towns" examples were specifically to demonstrate that your use of GNB NSW is meaningless. I have given you my opinion of your gnews search before. Stock standard google websearch shows it as a widely used term. You havent answered my question about why "local" means "non-notable" - IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion. I would guarantee there are plenty of good sources available at the Wingecaribee Library. Think about all these "keep" votes - here and in some of your other recent AfD nominations - is everyone wrong except you? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you should have provided sources in your initial vote. Shame look below, it's a delete vote. WP:ADHOM attacks are not encouraged. LibStar (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't have to provide anything in return for having an opinion. It is up to the closing editor to consider how much weight to place on my comment. Also, I did not make any ADHOM attack and your accusation that I did is in bad faith. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"is everyone wrong except you?" is ADHOM if I ever saw it. LibStar (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, a simple question for you to think about. I wonder if you will, however. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 12:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per the lack of reliable sources covering the term and significant coverage establishing notability. ╟─Treasury Tag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 11:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The local Council obviously considers that the area exists and is notable per the draft DCP Section A 4:2 of the DCP is interesting reading - "History and heritage context of the Northern Villages". -- Mattinbgn (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the WSC community profile continually refers to the Northern Villages as a discrete unit. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ABC news article about the extension of sewerage services to the Northern Villages. A proper search will, I am sure, yield yet more sources. Certainly deletion appears out of the question. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 12:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Admittedly a passing mention by the local MP in parliament but it puts the lie to the claim that the term is used locally only. The villages were nearly burnt down in 2002. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources Mattinbgn has identified are perfectly sufficient. Incidentally, a ga.gov.au search for "Wheatbelt" (probably one of WA's best known regions) turns up nothing too. Orderinchaos 14:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nothing like a good AFD to bring the RSSs out of the woodwork.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per sources from User:Mattinbgn. I'm sure there are also plenty of dead tree sources in the area that aren't available on the Internet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:02, 22 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.