Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wingeel, Victoria

Add links
Source: 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

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Wingeel, Victoria (edit | 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]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Australia. Shaws username . talk . 21:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The ABC notes it as the location of an accident: [1] Auspost lists it as a delivery location: [2] A fire was contained there in 2005: [3] The Age had a story on farmers who lived there: [4], and listed as the location of an electoral district in 1890. Clearly meets
    WP:GEOLAND. SportingFlyer T·C 21:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete: Beyond name drops, there isn't much that talks about this "place". It exists, fine, but a spot on a map isn't quite what we need for notability. No history associated with it, just a place along a road where people set up a stopping point... 26 people living there isn't quite the level of notability for a habited place we use. Oaktree b (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "presumed to be notable, even if the population is very low". We need sourcing about this location. Is there no history about how it got named? Oaktree b (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:N clearly states presumed is not a guarantee of notability. James.folsom (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It appears that the Australia Bureau of Statistics draws lines on the map to divide up every square inch of rural Australia and gives each set of lines a name. Maybe the area and name was just from that process. The SNG says that areas that are just an abstract set of lines (e.g. electoral district, census tract) on a map are not presumed notable. While I would not argue for the strictest interpretation of requiring establishing GNG compliance, I think that we should at least require sourcing that indicates that this is generally recognized as a place, including a few facts about it as asked above and which could be put into an article. And if not, delete. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    yes the article should be encyclopedic. Currently, it's just a statement of facts. James.folsom (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This is locality, not a distinct settlement (actually, it's a rail point as it appears to be a passing siding and possibly a flag stop). It's sort of like a US
    Census Designated Place except that the latter are set up to record data about settlements without legal boundaries. This comes across as more like a census tract. I'm looking at some of the surrounding cells on the map, and at least one of them lists no data because there aren't enough people there. The one immediately to the east (Hesse) seems to consist of a couple of farms and a few dispersed houses. I don't think that just because the Australian census divided the entire area up into cells, we are obligated to have an article on each one. Mangoe (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • No. It was a parish in the Shire of Leigh in the 19th and 20th centuries, and there are 19th century listings of the parishes of Leigh that confirm this. Leigh doesn't exist any more. Most of the historical mentions of Wingeel are actually referencing the sheep station at Barunah Plains and its wool sales at the salesyards in Wingeel. I'm not sure that there really is a U.S. analogue to local government in Victoria. It's a bit of a stretch to compare Victoria's shires and parishes to (say) midwestern U.S. counties and townships. Canada probably has closer analogues. All of the reaching nonsense afore about signposts and mail delivery is completely missing the sheep. It may be a bit unfair and stereotypical and ignorant of non-Europeans, but What's the livestock station? is still a question to ask when working out rural Australian places. Uncle G (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • The other difference is that Australia, even though it is more rural, is much more organised when it comes to places than North America - it is not as if this is an unincorporated place, it is a distinct government defined place. The census did not just make up Wingeel. SportingFlyer T·C 12:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, that's not what the census says itself. And if it was a parish, where's the church? This is former C of E territory, after all. Look, I didn't say they made the name up, but they themselves say that they put borders around what they call a locality for the purpose of counting. I do not agree that naming a place in the census makes it legally recognized, else we would be stuck with all that crap from the Iranian census. Mangoe (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you're asking where the church is, you're clearly unfamiliar with Australian local government area naming conventions... see [6] SportingFlyer T·C 21:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Where's the church? What? Djflem (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed. You have the 1955 list that still has Leigh Shire. The 1879 parish plan is at VPRS 16171/P0001/11, Wingeel(Psh)LOImp3836.pdf. Uncle G (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep legally recognized place in census and GeoNames appears to show it as a settlement and although there doesn't appear to be much there there is a tennis court, fire station and railway crossing so I'd argue its not a census tract in terms of GEOLAND. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Census tracts are not eligible for articles.James.folsom (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the intention of
    WP:GEOLAND. Doctorhawkes (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Per https://find.slv.vic.gov.au/discovery/search?query=any,contains,Wingeel&tab=searchProfile&search_scope=slv_local&vid=61SLV_INST:SLV&offset=0 Seems to (have been) a Township in the Parish of Hesse in County of Grenville, Victoria, a Cadastral division of Victoria, which is different it seems from localities in Victoria, though they might be coterminous. Djflem (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's listed under localities as well. SportingFlyer T·C 10:32, 1 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wingeel,_Victoria&oldid=1213512712"