Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australian repeated town names


 * 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, thus defaulting to keep. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Australian repeated town names

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

Redundant with Category:Double-named places in Australia. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   04:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I generally defend lists as complementing categories, but in this case I see no added value. --Dhartung | Talk 04:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. lists complement categories in ways that categories can't operate.  This could conceivably be expanded into a table to include town statistics or a short summary of information available in the town.  Celarnor Talk to me  09:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dhartung. I can't possibly see any way the list could be made any more useful than the category.  Statistics such as population etc. are not relevant to the factor linking these towns together, the double-name.  Perhaps, if the Aboriginal language the town name derives from was known... -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom (redundant) and per Dhartung (no added value on category).-- VS talk 21:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Keep per Celarnor. The Category and the list are synergistic and no conflict. Explained nicely at WP:CLS. The list article could do with expanding but no reason to delete.--Sting au  Buzz Me...   21:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Keep per Celarnor. JRG (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Provisional Keep, lists can complement categories, but this one does not at the present time. However, there is the possibility of expansion if the origin of these towns names can be verified and included.  If this cannot be done, then delete.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC).
 * Delete to avoid List of Spanish repeated town names and so. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete A good read (:D) but unfortunately redundant with category; does not offer any info that category doesn't. — 97198   talk  11:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per reasoning at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_17 I don't think the category is a sufficient substitute but rather a useful tool to develop the list with some meaningful commentary. Repeating words is linguistic phenomenon of indigenous Australian languages. Topics related to indigenous Australian languages are currently underrepresented. This list and associated category are in my view encyclopaedic.  AfD is not an appropriate tool for calling for clean-up.  That the list offers no more than the category at the moment is in my view not a valid reason for deletion rather the list needs improving.  I note also the list inclusdes red links - ie for places where an article is yet to be written (though these places would need to be verified - redlinks cannot be incorporated into a category, another reason for a list to supplement.--Matilda talk 01:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Delete; yes, lists complement categories, but in this case I can't possibly imagine why someone would need a list for such information, and I can't see how adding relevant list information would make the list more useful (am I making sense?). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, yet oh so easy to say whack with a nulla nulla, but this does have potential not only are town names interesting as a subset but the use of repeated words is a notable section of Indigenous Australian languages particularly within the Pama-Nyungan languages. Gnangarra 04:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Keep per Celarnor and Matilda and Gnangarra's comments SatuSuro 06:26, 10 May 2008 (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.