Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Otago

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. (non-admin closure) ——SN 54129 09:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

South Otago

[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)

Page is without any references and appears to mostly mirror Clutha District in scope. The name represents no established political or geographic area and it is questionable whether WP:COMMONNAME can be established - given the lack of references. Any details from this page can be merged into Clutha District and / or Dunedin City or similar as appropriate. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article presents good information, but it is unsourced. If the author or other editor will add sources, I would vote keep because I do believe this is significant, but as it stands now I believe the best option would be to Redirect and Merge to Clutha District. Puddleglum^2.0 06:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Puddleglum2.0: I've added a few more references - care to take another look? Grutness...wha? 03:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs sources, but it's clearly the name of a region that will pass WP:GNG if we can get it there. This isn't an "official" region but rather is the name the region is generally known by. The Otago Daily Times even has a South Otago section. [1] SportingFlyer T·C 06:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SportingFlyer. Note that per the edit summary used here the nominator apparently does not believe that South Otago exists. The nomination could most politely be called uninformed. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

user:Freeknowledgecreator I feel your above comment is questioning my good faith in bringing this deletion request to discussion. I think it would be good for you to strike, reword or delete your above comment before it comes back and bites you. Andrewgprout (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you question the existence of something that does clearly exist you can expect people to point out that your position does not make sense. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's also part of an encyclopaedia published on the NZ government's web site. SportingFlyer T·C 03:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately this reference does not back up the definition of South Otago as described by the article we have, nor the geographical locality discussed in the edit User:Freeknowledgecreator brought up above. This further indicates the lack of reliable references that support an actual "geographic area" known as South Otago rather than a general term to describe a relative and variable part of Otago as a whole. Lots of Planets have a South! Notability is only half of a reason to keep - even if notable it appears questionable to me that we need both a South Otago and a Clutha District article. Andrewgprout (talk) 07:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might just as well nominate Southern United States for deletion and support it with arguments like that. In some cases it can be disputed which states are part of the South, and thus what the South's precise borders are. Doesn't alter the fact that Southern USA clearly exists. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we changed the name of this article to "Southern Otago" and referenced it properly your point could be valid. As it is the article is not similar to the Southern US example.Andrewgprout (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge as South Otago is a subset of Otago. It does not warrant a stand alone article. It is not defined by the NZGB, nor is a Region, District, Borough, County, or electorate. As previously stated it falls approximately within the Clutha District. The name is frequently used in newspaper articles within New Zeland, but for the sake of identity a redirect to Clutha District should surfice. NealeFamily (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I've seen reference being made that geographic region (hence GNG shouldn't be an issue), even if it's not clearly defined. Yes, it needs work but AfD isn't cleanup. I'm surprised that the article creator hasn't been notified (it's an ancient article; might have fallen off Grutness' watchlist). Schwede 66 00:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - far from identical with Clutha (South Otago does not usually include the Catlins, to start with, and much f West Otago is also in Clutha). Also "Southern Otago" is never used as a name. South Otago is very commonly used, however - as an example, here's a news report from just two days ago. And here's an official government release. And another. Note that they use a capital S for South Otago, which they wouldn't if it was just describing a section of a larger region. If you need more examples of its use there are plenty available. Yes, the article needs references, but that doesn't mean it should be proposed for deletion - there are far better ways to suggest references for an article. (PS - thanks @Schwede66: for the notification!) Grutness...wha? 01:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grutness.-gadfium 05:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, and WP:COMMONNAME clearly established. Paora (talk) 10:56, 7 February 2020 (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.