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.
Merge and redirectDelete Changing to merge and redirect as per below. It seems it is not the only one of the oldest properties. I found the following:
"Man Finds Wife's Body In River". The Mercury. Vol. CLXX, no. 24, 627. Tasmania, Australia. 16 November 1949. p. 8. Retrieved 17 March 2019 – via National Library of Australia.
"Country Intelligence". The Tasmanian. Vol. XXI, no. 2. Tasmania, Australia. 9 January 1892. p. 32. Retrieved 17 March 2019 – via National Library of Australia.
"OBITUARY". Daily Telegraph. Vol. XLI, no. 30. Tasmania, Australia. 4 February 1921. p. 6. Retrieved 17 March 2019 – via National Library of Australia.
"Advertising". Launceston Examiner. Vol. XL, no. 290. Tasmania, Australia. 29 November 1880. p. 4. Retrieved 17 March 2019 – via National Library of Australia.
but these are all I could find and I think not strong enough to save the article, even though they do directly support some of the current article content.
Aoziwe (
talk)
12:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Nice research! NB Some of these seem to be near Perth, so are a different place of the same name. That would include the picture that's last on your list, unfortunately -- otherwise it would have been a nice image to include.
Alarichall (
talk)
21:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Alarichall I am not at all sure that GEOLAND is applicable. The subject is not a locality, it is an individual, not extensive property. If you have more references than the ones I found and you can enhance the article, I am open to changing my !vote. (I got a 404 error on your link above.)
Aoziwe (
talk)
01:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the reply,
Aoziwe! I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. Going back to the
WP:GEOLAND criteria: is Leighlands a legally recognised place? Yes. It is clearly a place, and it was legally constituted as a 1500-acre estate. Was it populated? Yes. So it meets the criterion. GEOLAND works rather differently from the general notability criteria, which are what you seem to be thinking of in suggesting that more references are required (though I have added some more references).
Alarichall (
talk)
16:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Hmm, good point. Well, while recognising that this article is never going to be a major contribution to world geography, I'd suggest that we might interpret GEOLAND differently in rural contexts and urban ones. In urban space, small properties together constitute a 'place', whereas in rural space, estates constitute a 'place'. But I wouldn't want to get into a big argument about this! At the end of the day, I just imagine that there will be people out there who want to look up this historically interesting spot; I don't see it as doing anyone any harm; and it does get a passing mention in a few scholarly sources. (By the way -- you may know how to interpret this:
this article, p. 72, gives what seem to be co-ordinates for Leighlands, as EP 17006451. But I'm not sure how to interpret this. Just thought I'd ask in case it enables CaptainRaju to sort out his geoco-ordinates issue in the event of keeping the article.)
Alarichall (
talk)
12:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Thanks. Yep I did know that but did not recall it. I should have rechecked the article! Changing my !vote to merge and redirect.
Aoziwe (
talk)
13:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete: Eeesh, if we take GEOLAND to its absurd limit, the small house I own is a "legally recognized place" -- it's in the county Registry of Deeds. I find no notability for this place. Nha TrangAllons!00:32, 3 April 2019 (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.
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.
Merge and redirectDelete Changing to merge and redirect as per below. It seems it is not the only one of the oldest properties. I found the following:
"Man Finds Wife's Body In River". The Mercury. Vol. CLXX, no. 24, 627. Tasmania, Australia. 16 November 1949. p. 8. Retrieved 17 March 2019 – via National Library of Australia.
"Country Intelligence". The Tasmanian. Vol. XXI, no. 2. Tasmania, Australia. 9 January 1892. p. 32. Retrieved 17 March 2019 – via National Library of Australia.
"OBITUARY". Daily Telegraph. Vol. XLI, no. 30. Tasmania, Australia. 4 February 1921. p. 6. Retrieved 17 March 2019 – via National Library of Australia.
"Advertising". Launceston Examiner. Vol. XL, no. 290. Tasmania, Australia. 29 November 1880. p. 4. Retrieved 17 March 2019 – via National Library of Australia.
but these are all I could find and I think not strong enough to save the article, even though they do directly support some of the current article content.
Aoziwe (
talk)
12:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Nice research! NB Some of these seem to be near Perth, so are a different place of the same name. That would include the picture that's last on your list, unfortunately -- otherwise it would have been a nice image to include.
Alarichall (
talk)
21:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Alarichall I am not at all sure that GEOLAND is applicable. The subject is not a locality, it is an individual, not extensive property. If you have more references than the ones I found and you can enhance the article, I am open to changing my !vote. (I got a 404 error on your link above.)
Aoziwe (
talk)
01:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the reply,
Aoziwe! I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. Going back to the
WP:GEOLAND criteria: is Leighlands a legally recognised place? Yes. It is clearly a place, and it was legally constituted as a 1500-acre estate. Was it populated? Yes. So it meets the criterion. GEOLAND works rather differently from the general notability criteria, which are what you seem to be thinking of in suggesting that more references are required (though I have added some more references).
Alarichall (
talk)
16:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Hmm, good point. Well, while recognising that this article is never going to be a major contribution to world geography, I'd suggest that we might interpret GEOLAND differently in rural contexts and urban ones. In urban space, small properties together constitute a 'place', whereas in rural space, estates constitute a 'place'. But I wouldn't want to get into a big argument about this! At the end of the day, I just imagine that there will be people out there who want to look up this historically interesting spot; I don't see it as doing anyone any harm; and it does get a passing mention in a few scholarly sources. (By the way -- you may know how to interpret this:
this article, p. 72, gives what seem to be co-ordinates for Leighlands, as EP 17006451. But I'm not sure how to interpret this. Just thought I'd ask in case it enables CaptainRaju to sort out his geoco-ordinates issue in the event of keeping the article.)
Alarichall (
talk)
12:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Thanks. Yep I did know that but did not recall it. I should have rechecked the article! Changing my !vote to merge and redirect.
Aoziwe (
talk)
13:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete: Eeesh, if we take GEOLAND to its absurd limit, the small house I own is a "legally recognized place" -- it's in the county Registry of Deeds. I find no notability for this place. Nha TrangAllons!00:32, 3 April 2019 (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.