Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southwest, Tasmania

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 South West Tasmania. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest, Tasmania[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)

"Southwest" is a region, not a locality or suburb in Tasmania. An article already covers the topic South West Tasmania. It could be speedily deleted as a recently created page that duplicates an existing topic. But I suspect this will be a bit more controversial. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest is a locality, as a quick look at the references will confirm. Downsize43 (talk) 06:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only one reference mentions that, and it is a database record, and that is given as the type of database entity rather than text, and is in no way distinct from the article on the region. This area always will have Tasmania in the name. It is not a place called "Southwest". The main issue in the reference is whether r not there should be a space in the name. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 07:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with South West Tasmania. "Southwest" is indeed technically a locality in the geographic data sense, so should remain as such in Wikidata, LISTmap and as an ABS census tract, but not necessary as a separate Wikipedia article as the only difference is the carveout of Strathgordon as an enclave locality. Not enough of a distinction for separation, when the status as a technical locality and the exclusion of Strathgordon could be mentioned in the article. --Canley (talk) 06:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the comments by the two admins, who as knowledgable of Tasmania have an understanding of the convoluted designations of 'things' by the current Australian and Tasmanian governmental information systems - as Canley points out technicsl locality and Graeme points out the designation is a single database record.

Comment The usage is not extended beyond the data item, and could only create real confusion as to what is what in Tasmanian geography, and in turn reduce credibility of the Tasmanian project. JarrahTree 07:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Macquarie Pass is another locality which is virtually identical with the Macquarie Pass National Park. Avon, New South Wales is identical to the Avon Reservoir catchment area and might also be merged with the Avon Dam article.--Grahame (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment and also West Coast, Tasmania (Locality) is a duplicate topic of West Coast, Tasmania, and so could also be merged. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - what about Southwest National Park, South West Wilderness, do they all need their own page? I suspect the national park page is the one with the most valid claim to its own page. Deus et lex (talk) 09:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Well South West Tasmania was known as such long before the national park was created. I do believe that is a notable topic, but it is not necessarily distinct from the national park or wilderness area. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Graeme Bartlett, I think that's the point I was trying to make. Deus et lex (talk) 09:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, my idea of what a merged article should look like is at Draft:South West Tasmania ( merged) Downsize43 (talk) 11:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - including the West Coast and Central Highland localities in terms of state suburbs we ( some of the editors above here ) have been through this all before, and it is the total misapplication of the state suburbs - they are neither valid localities or even entities of any legal sense - they are invented statistical entities and not in any real sense anything that could or should be used. For background please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_12#Category:Suburbs_of_West_Coast,_Tasmania. Please consider that the issue has been covered already, and that this Afd is simply an affirmation of the issues raised in April 2016. Thanks. JarrahTree 10:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - as author of the article in question, and of a draft merged article. Personal disagreement with the way the government has chosen to name its pieces of dirt is not a good reason to delete useful information. Downsize43 (talk) 23:48, 1 August 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.