From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion. BD2412 T 17:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Wingeel, Victoria (  | 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)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG. Clearly does not meet GNG, so the only possibility is NGeo. This is tract of farmland that has 26 people living in it. Appears to exist only as a sort of census tract. I looked and could not find anything that it exists as anything else. The "hits" on travel sites had nothing on it, they just listed far away attractions that are not in it. North8000 ( talk) 20:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: From this discussion, it's clear nobody can agree on what this place actually is/was. I would say that's a good sign we don't have enough information about it for an article. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 16:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment Many would call me biased towards geo articles. But my thought and I think what's covered in NGEO and also the consensus there is that anything that is just a set of abstract set of lines on a map (e.g. irrigation district, library district, platted possible future area etc.) even if the lines are legally defined, is not presumed notable under the SNG and needs to meet GNG. I'd even advocate for a lenient interpretation of GNG in those cases, but in this case despite efforts made nothing found was even close to that or from which to potentially build an article from. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 16:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

It appears that parishes were often or usually just lines on a map meaning that just being a parish does not indicate that it is anything more than that. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 18:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep while it's label has changed (township, parish, state suburb, locality) it has existed since the 19th century and has been and has remained a named populated place (not census tract) recognized by state and national governments. Djflem ( talk) 16:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. Comparing the maps of localities of Golden Plains Shire [7] and parishes of Grenville County [8] I suspect that the two uses of Wingeel are rather different though there may be some overlap. In cases like this where places are verifiable from government maps and passing mentions in local media I prefer redirection to deletion. Probably to Golden Plains Shire as that seems to be the real local government with Grenville County purely notional. Eluchil404 ( talk) 00:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Two uses? I'm not sure what you mean - on the Grenville County map there's clearly a dot for a Wingeel settlement, and the Golden Plains shire shows it's clearly a modern locality. It's also partially in another local government area and is a clearly legally defined settlement, so the redirect doesn't make sense. Best to keep. SportingFlyer T· C 00:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep it exists and has people living in it 128.82.18.5 ( talk) 15:09, 2 March 2024 (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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion. BD2412 T 17:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Wingeel, Victoria (  | 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)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG. Clearly does not meet GNG, so the only possibility is NGeo. This is tract of farmland that has 26 people living in it. Appears to exist only as a sort of census tract. I looked and could not find anything that it exists as anything else. The "hits" on travel sites had nothing on it, they just listed far away attractions that are not in it. North8000 ( talk) 20:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: From this discussion, it's clear nobody can agree on what this place actually is/was. I would say that's a good sign we don't have enough information about it for an article. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 16:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment Many would call me biased towards geo articles. But my thought and I think what's covered in NGEO and also the consensus there is that anything that is just a set of abstract set of lines on a map (e.g. irrigation district, library district, platted possible future area etc.) even if the lines are legally defined, is not presumed notable under the SNG and needs to meet GNG. I'd even advocate for a lenient interpretation of GNG in those cases, but in this case despite efforts made nothing found was even close to that or from which to potentially build an article from. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 16:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

It appears that parishes were often or usually just lines on a map meaning that just being a parish does not indicate that it is anything more than that. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 18:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep while it's label has changed (township, parish, state suburb, locality) it has existed since the 19th century and has been and has remained a named populated place (not census tract) recognized by state and national governments. Djflem ( talk) 16:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. Comparing the maps of localities of Golden Plains Shire [7] and parishes of Grenville County [8] I suspect that the two uses of Wingeel are rather different though there may be some overlap. In cases like this where places are verifiable from government maps and passing mentions in local media I prefer redirection to deletion. Probably to Golden Plains Shire as that seems to be the real local government with Grenville County purely notional. Eluchil404 ( talk) 00:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Two uses? I'm not sure what you mean - on the Grenville County map there's clearly a dot for a Wingeel settlement, and the Golden Plains shire shows it's clearly a modern locality. It's also partially in another local government area and is a clearly legally defined settlement, so the redirect doesn't make sense. Best to keep. SportingFlyer T· C 00:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep it exists and has people living in it 128.82.18.5 ( talk) 15:09, 2 March 2024 (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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook