Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian gold rushes


 * 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. Procedural/snow keep. No deletion rationale have been presented to delete the article. Consensus has established the subject's notability. Discussion on changing the title should take place at Requested moves. Discussion to merge the article's content should take place through a merge discussion. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  02:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Australian gold rushes

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Separate articles Western Australian gold rushes and Victorian gold rush already exist and both deal with local issues in those states, which seems to be the more natural way to deal with this topic. Either move this to New South Wales gold rushes and strip out non-NSW stuff; or delete and merge content to those existing articles. Moondyne (talk) 08:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is notable as there is at least one book about it: Gold Down Under; The Story of the Australian Gold Rush.  The rest is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no suggestion that the topic is not-notable - just that this method of organisation is confusing and duplicative. Gold rushes (in Australia at least) were spread over wide geographic areas and a country-wide article makes little sense (to me anyway), because there's no substantive link between each gold rush other than them being in the same country.  Perhaps the current poor standard of the article is a reflection of that.  Moondyne (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable topic although it would be good to reconcile this article with the other two mentioned in the nomination. The nominator's suggestion to move and strip out content would be one way to go or the other two articles could be merged here. "Delete and merge" is not suitable since there is no compelling need for deletion (see Merge and delete) &mdash; however, merge and redirect to Gold rush might be fine. Anyway, editorial process can be used and no deletion is required. Thincat (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - a notable topic on which we should have an article and the necessary sources to meet WP:GNG are available. However, this page requires much work and compares very poorly to, for example, Victorian gold rush. Post-AFD consideration should be given to merge in Western Australian gold rushes and Victorian gold rush to form a consolidated article. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Needs a lot of fixing, and then could be a means by which people who do not recognize the names of Australian states may get to explore the topic. Downsize43 (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.