Talk:North Central Victoria

Football team listings
I have removed an extensive section comprising a list of non-notable football teams, and some original research about how the location boundaries are confusing because they don't match the name of local AFL clubs. If this material is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, it should be in an article on the North Central Football League instead of being the majority of an article on a semi-unrelated geographic region.

As always, comments and disagreements welcome. Euryalus (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of definition of the area
I have removed the defintion of the region as it was uncited, contradictory and confusing. Any definition of the term will require reliable sources setting out what area the region includes and who uses the term and in what context. See Wimmera for an example, admittedly uncited, showing how an region can be defined. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC).


 * I've added the area definitions cited in the AfD. I remain of the view that this is not a sufficiently credible region for an article, but as the AfD was 'keep' we may as well take advantage of the sites people looked up and include the relevant sections. Euryalus (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In response to I remain of the view that this is not a sufficiently credible region for an article - while the region may not be as well identified as some others, most notably the Wimmera, the Mallee and the Riverina, I believe regions are an important feature of the geography of Australia and have more identity, not always overt, than is given credit. I believe tight referencing is called for and there my well be undefined and overlapping boundaries, however I think a coverage of the regions of Australia is an enhancement to the Wikipedia and can be done in an encyclopaedic manner - just can't devote the energy to this article right now :-( --Matilda talk 04:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the deletion review based on the work done by Euryalus. I tend to agree with him, but at least now we have a decent stub that is actually useful to readers. Well done. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Material that is useful to readers is what we are all about - I continue to think that the wikipedia is improved by having this material on it - better than not. Seeing this - nobody is going to try to recreate something only about football teams - never know our luck, might even read the talk page and create a good stub (as per this example) on the red link above :-) --Matilda talk 05:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, this stub is useful. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)