Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places in Tasmania by population (2nd nomination)


 * 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   merge to List_of_cities_in_Australia_by_population. The arguments for deletion are compelling, but there seems to be no reason why the information can't be preserved elsewhere. This is a tricky AfD closure, please message me if you believe I've got it wrong. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

List of places in Tasmania by population
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Recreation of a recently deleted (4 days ago) article. While the content has changed slightly from the original, it still suffers all of the problems listed at the previous AfD. The rankings are no longer present, which means that the article really has no function now. The original article missed over 80% of UC/Ls, while this one misses 75.2%, a slight improvement but not sufficient to justify retention. References are still not provided for each entry. The differences between the original version, which is now userfied at User:AussieLegend/Tasmania and the current article demonstrate the issues that I presented at the original AfD. AussieLegend (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The criteria for lists are set out at WP:SALAT, and in summary are fairly broad and essentially permit any list of reasonable but not excessive size with clearly defined scope and potential value as a navigation or analytical aid.  This list topic is therefore within the pounds of potentially acceptable topics.  If the list content is poor or incomplete that is an issue that can be fixed via normal editing.  AfD is not for cleanup.  I have read over the previous AfD and feel that it did not attract sufficient discussion to be seen as an authoritative community statement on this list. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is, this is an article that is just an indiscriminate list of an apparently random selection of 26 UC/Ls (UC/Ls are explained below) from the master list of 105. The links in the article do not necessarily correspond to any, or the correct, physical place (also see below) so this article doesn't really have any value, at least to anyone who understands what a UC/L is. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How exactly do you know there are 105 UC/L's? i also believe the article was only intended to list UC's perhaps though if the article is not deleted i'll research and add the L's. Stony  ¿ 05:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How would a list of UC/L's which are arbitrarily defined by a statistical body represent "potential value as a navigation or analytical aid"? This is not an issue that "can be fixed via normal editing" - it's a profound issue of WP:V and WP:OR. Orderinchaos 03:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - I (re)created this revision after no knowledge of the first, i basically used the victorian article as a guide to writing this, which also lacks reference for each locality. 75.2% missing based on what exactly? as the list itself refers to UL's which are 1000+ persons, pretty sure if anything i missed maybe less than 5 of them. Also perhaps instead of a deletion request, maybe suggestions on the talk page would have been more appropriate? to give us a clue as to how to improve it, basically people are just going to see a red link and redo this page time and time again. I feel that given the afore mentioned  victorian article is basically the same as this, then if this is deleted i believe that article too should be considered for deletion as they both have similar content.  Stony  ¿ 04:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - 'They'll just recreate it' isn't a reason to not delete, and if it comes to it we have ways of dealing with that (see WP:SALT). However a willingness by you to continue improving the article is certainly a factor that argues towards keeping it and hopefully AussieLegend will take the time to work with you to address his concerns.  (I confess I don't understand his references to UC/Ls myself.) - DustFormsWords (talk)


 * Comment - I just thought rather than delete it every time, we can use the talk page to post issues about improving it, when i recreated this i had no knowledge it previously existed nor why it was deleted, no way of knowing how to improve it which would have been helpful. Stony  ¿ 04:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You didn't notice the warning that said the page had been deleted as the result of an AfD discussion, like these: when you tried to create it? --AussieLegend (talk) 05:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No i never(blind maybe) however i did on the talk page. Stony  ¿ 05:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * UC/Ls (Urban Centre/Locality) are statistical areas used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. They do not conform to the borders of suburbs, towns, cities, Local Government Areas or any other physical places. For example, the "Newcastle" UC/L includes most of the city of Newcastle LGA, part of the city of Lake Macquarie LGA and part of one suburb in the Port Stephens Council LGA. Certain places are excluded without explanation (see the non-shaded areas in this image) while some non-populated areas are just as strangely included. The ABS provides projections for all population centres each year, but UC/Ls are only accurate once every four years, when the census occurs. While they are a guide to the population of a region, using them as the basis for a list of places (the article was originally created as a list of cities) results in an article as useful as "List of shades of colors of apple sauce".
 * I actually agree with Stony that List of places in Victoria by population should be deleted. Unfortunately we couldn't come to a consensus at Articles for deletion/List of places in Victoria by population and the people who voted to keep it have made no attempt to improve that, or any of the other articles discussed at WP:AWNB. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete It is not substantially different to the version which was deleted at AfD a few days ago. The article is not useful in its present form, for the reasons AussieLegend has put forward - the selection of the places in question is entirely arbitrary and the ABS themselves do not use UC/Ls in this manner (they have "Statistical Sub-districts" which they use for comparison, which are just as arbitrary but take in a distinct area rather than leaving large bits out.) The fact that the Victorian version does not have citations is actually a major problem with that article (actively being discussed elsewhere), not a reason to recreate the problem elsewhere. Orderinchaos 03:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)*
 * Delete mystified why there is such a need for such a list, two afds, and one recreation - there must be something desperate going on somewhere - there is adequate material in the Tasmanian project that with some further linking can provide the interested reader far much more information and leads to it - - the lack of adequate criteria being addressed as to why locations are listed, against the status within the LGA's and governmental (state and federal) criteria of population statistics - would be better served in articles rather than this list SatuSuro 04:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep According to WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not for excessive listings of statistics. But this guideline does encourage lists like this to be placed in a table, as this one is. Sebwite (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your support is based on the excessive statistics being in a table? Or did I get that wrong? --AussieLegend (talk) 07:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge into List of cities in Australia by population - I think the article has useful information in that it focuses on population centres specifically within a state - listing each state with dropdown links into List of cities in Australia by population would be cleaner than having separate pages for each state and territory. Australian Matt (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete (Close?) - If this were the first AfD, I would have said Keep - absolutely a great, useful list. However, item #3 at DRV says you gotta have significant new information has come to light since the deletion. That significant new information needs to overcome the reason for the initial deletion. In this case, it didn't. The AfD nominatior should have taken the reposting of the topic and/or denial of speedy delete to DRV instead of posting at AfD. It would not be wrong to procedurally close this AfD and list at DRV. What is going on here in AfD2 is that the first AfD is not being given its effect - we're redeciding an issue that already has been decided. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:05, 8 December 2010 (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.