Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Yarra River


 * 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   delete. One two three... 03:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

History of the Yarra River

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article consists almost entirely of the history section of the main article on the Yarra River. Any unique content could easily be merged into Yarra River. Michael Johnson (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If there's any unique content, you can discuss a merge at WP:MRFD or simply be bold and do it. If there isn't, it's blatant duplicate material ready for deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 12:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Response - Any suggestion that this article should be deleted is invalid as it has unique material within it, a merger would be the only warranted case. It is obvious that this article is still under construction, any suggestion that it should be merged or attempts to do so would be counter-productive to the contributions to the subject (being the history of the yarra river) and it should be noted that the best course of action in this case would be further development of the article in question. There is too much information to merge into the one section in the main Yarra River article, thus why it was split in the first place. Let's stop wasting time and start contributing to the history of the yarra river article by expanding upon it, developing it, sourceing information, taking photographs and obtaining old ones from historical societies, etc, etc. Merging and most certainly, deleting, are indeed counter-productive. Nick carson (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to the history section of the Yarra river article. As far as I can tell, the article is substantially a copy of the history section.  The history section of the main article is large but not unwieldy so there is no need for a separate article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep No valid reason for deletion has been given by the nominators or in the discussion. It remains a mystery to me why anyone would think the article should be deleted (I'm not sure that there is any reason listed in WP:DEL stating that "blatant duplicate material" is "ready for deletion"). Any proposals to merge can be made on the article talk page, however I see no good reason for this either. The article proposed to be merged is 15K and the main article itself is already 42K. The topic is undeniably encyclopedic and there is good reason to expect it can be expanded quite substantially. A plethora of reliable sources are available. A split was entirely appropriate and perhaps even the preferred option in this case; this spun-out article should be allowed to expand and Yarra River should be rewritten in summary style. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Comment" The content is for all intents and purposes identical. Merging is not required. The question is why is the article needed? Certainly there is no point in referring to from the Yarra River article, all the infomation is already there. --Michael Johnson (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - The content can't be "as far as I know" or "for all intents and purposes" it either is or it isn't identical. The content is actually not identical, there is unique content. Please help contribute to the History of the Yarra River article by helping expand it and improve it's quality. If anyone has issues with any content that is duplicated, we could reduce the scale of the history section of the Yarra River article, which I may or may not have already done after I split it into a new section. Nick carson (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jamie ☆ S93  15:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * delete Copy and paste fork from Yarra River. There is no reason to have a sub article when all the info is in the main article, and the main article is not too large. Hipocrite (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As a section of existing article. No need for duplication or fork. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * comment this is apparently a merge discussion, not afd. Personally, i don't see the point of keeping a breakout article with exact duplication of the content of the section in the main article, nor do I see any need for breakout, given the reasonable length of the main article. If the discussion resumes at the proper place, I'll say so. DGG (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge. If it's the same as the content currently in the article, it's pointless being split out. However, this could be a notable topic if sufficiently expanded. Rebecca (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2009 (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.