- 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. Canley ( talk) 12:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Golconda, Tasmania ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG through lack of significant coverage; many partial mentions, but no significant coverage. All sources currently provided are primary sources.
It is possible though not certain that it meets WP:GEOLAND, but if it does that only provides a presumption of notability, and in this case that presumption appears to be false. BilledMammal ( talk) 21:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal ( talk) 21:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Why would we delete a populated place? Populated places are presumed notable, even if they are small. I don't see how this improves Wikipedia. Desertambition ( talk) 21:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep This is surely a joke. The reasons given would apply to many small localities in Australia. I and many others have invested thousands of hours to ensure that these articles contain as much useful information as is contained in the sources available to us. For our readers they serve to flesh out their knowledge and understanding of this vast country, which is surely one of the roles of an encyclopedia.
Downsize43 (
talk)
23:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- If this is all the information that exists on it, then it cannot be kept, as it violates
WP:PRIMARY;
Do not base an entire article on primary sources
. The reader also doesn't benefit from such articles; they would be better off if redirected to a list of localities. BilledMammal ( talk) 23:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)- How can references 2 and 4 be regarded as primary sources? They are summaries of information in primary sources provided by the Tasmanian Government, therefore secondary in my book. Reference 1 is also a summary of information from the primary sources, the census forms completed by households. Downsize43 ( talk) 01:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- If this is all the information that exists on it, then it cannot be kept, as it violates
WP:PRIMARY;
- Speedy keep Per above. Why is this even a discussion?? Seacactus 13 ( talk) 01:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy procedural close Check TROVE. There seem to be thousands of potential references for the Tasmanian Golconda. The BEFORE done here must have been fundamentally flawed.
49.195.62.183 (
talk)
11:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Trove gives me a fatal accident in 1893, a cricket match in 1905, and an item about a chapter of a book about a mine in 1881. Hardly encyclopediac and not quite "thousands". Downsize43 ( talk) 21:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Try
this search. Possibly more than 7,000?
49.195.44.164 (
talk)
10:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Now I know why some people rave about Trove while others not so. Where does one find guidance to construct such a query?
Downsize43 (
talk)
22:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Taking to your talk. Aoziwe ( talk) 11:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Now I know why some people rave about Trove while others not so. Where does one find guidance to construct such a query?
Downsize43 (
talk)
22:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Try
this search. Possibly more than 7,000?
49.195.44.164 (
talk)
10:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - BEFORE? what BEFORE? Also, I agree with Downsize43 on the question of primary sources. The nom's interpretation of WP:PRIMARY here is adrift. Ingratis ( talk) 12:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I think it does pass being legally recognized per GEOLAND as I don't think a place has to be a municipality or district. An official figure from a census seems to pass this and anyway it can be seen from GeoNames that there is also a settlement by this name. Also it has coverage from an independent source about its name origin which I think is also a good indicator of notability. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 10:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep As narrated above by other editors. Laptopinmyhands ( talk) 02:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 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. Canley ( talk) 12:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Golconda, Tasmania ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG through lack of significant coverage; many partial mentions, but no significant coverage. All sources currently provided are primary sources.
It is possible though not certain that it meets WP:GEOLAND, but if it does that only provides a presumption of notability, and in this case that presumption appears to be false. BilledMammal ( talk) 21:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal ( talk) 21:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Why would we delete a populated place? Populated places are presumed notable, even if they are small. I don't see how this improves Wikipedia. Desertambition ( talk) 21:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep This is surely a joke. The reasons given would apply to many small localities in Australia. I and many others have invested thousands of hours to ensure that these articles contain as much useful information as is contained in the sources available to us. For our readers they serve to flesh out their knowledge and understanding of this vast country, which is surely one of the roles of an encyclopedia.
Downsize43 (
talk)
23:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- If this is all the information that exists on it, then it cannot be kept, as it violates
WP:PRIMARY;
Do not base an entire article on primary sources
. The reader also doesn't benefit from such articles; they would be better off if redirected to a list of localities. BilledMammal ( talk) 23:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)- How can references 2 and 4 be regarded as primary sources? They are summaries of information in primary sources provided by the Tasmanian Government, therefore secondary in my book. Reference 1 is also a summary of information from the primary sources, the census forms completed by households. Downsize43 ( talk) 01:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- If this is all the information that exists on it, then it cannot be kept, as it violates
WP:PRIMARY;
- Speedy keep Per above. Why is this even a discussion?? Seacactus 13 ( talk) 01:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy procedural close Check TROVE. There seem to be thousands of potential references for the Tasmanian Golconda. The BEFORE done here must have been fundamentally flawed.
49.195.62.183 (
talk)
11:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Trove gives me a fatal accident in 1893, a cricket match in 1905, and an item about a chapter of a book about a mine in 1881. Hardly encyclopediac and not quite "thousands". Downsize43 ( talk) 21:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Try
this search. Possibly more than 7,000?
49.195.44.164 (
talk)
10:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Now I know why some people rave about Trove while others not so. Where does one find guidance to construct such a query?
Downsize43 (
talk)
22:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Taking to your talk. Aoziwe ( talk) 11:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Now I know why some people rave about Trove while others not so. Where does one find guidance to construct such a query?
Downsize43 (
talk)
22:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Try
this search. Possibly more than 7,000?
49.195.44.164 (
talk)
10:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - BEFORE? what BEFORE? Also, I agree with Downsize43 on the question of primary sources. The nom's interpretation of WP:PRIMARY here is adrift. Ingratis ( talk) 12:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I think it does pass being legally recognized per GEOLAND as I don't think a place has to be a municipality or district. An official figure from a census seems to pass this and anyway it can be seen from GeoNames that there is also a settlement by this name. Also it has coverage from an independent source about its name origin which I think is also a good indicator of notability. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 10:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep As narrated above by other editors. Laptopinmyhands ( talk) 02:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.