Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Central Victoria


 * 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 wasKeep !Votes to the effect of "delete and then rewrite it" were ignored. JERRY talk contribs 02:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

North Central Victoria

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article is completely unsourced. The topic seems not to be what the title suggests but a discussion on what actually is north central Victoria without deciding on an answer. It then goes into discussing a local Australian rules football competition. Even if the topic can be defined clearly enough to create an article (which I doubt, but I am happy to be corrected), none of this can be saved. Mattinbgn\talk 23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Delete it as the nom said, no sources at all. Ohmpandya  ( Talk )  01:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Ford MF (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a very confusing article. Delete and recreate if this region is a sensible name for something. --Bduke (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Article is non sequiter  and I agree with Bduke on recreation if sensibility can be confirmed. -- VS talk 01:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, article in its current state is very nearly nonsense. "North Central Victoria" does seem to be a term used by the Victorian government for a discrete region though (see, ), although whether a purely administrative region like this can have a sensible article written on it is debatable.  Lankiveil (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC).
 * We have a few for WA regions - eg Wheatbelt (Western Australia), Great Southern (Western Australia) - however they are clearly and unambiguously defined, each have an LGA association, a development corporation etc, and the ABS cover them (although often not with the same names) so there's really no debate at all over boundaries and such things. Orderinchaos 14:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - unsourced and no assertion of ntoability. No evidence that the term has any currency as a regional name (other than the obvious fact of being north of central Victoria). The article starts with a confusing summary of two potential definitions for the region, then moves on to become a coatrack for a local football competition. Euryalus (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keeep - The place exists and could be greatly expanded. Kilo  T  16:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What exactly would you keep from this article? -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article consists of a brief and confusing place description followed by local football details. The football details are both irrelevant and non-notable. The "place" as an article subject is also not notable. It exists in the sense that any piece of land has a centre, and part of that centre is north of the other parts. It doesn't seem to exist as a recognised "region", an identifiable community, an area with common geographic features or in any other official or notable way. There are two mentions listed above but in the first case it is in the context of a shorthand way of breaking down the State. The second is a reference to a catchment management authority, which while physically located in the northern part of central Victoria is not of itself sufficient to demonstrate a commonality of townships or communities that would create a definable region. Even the article itself is incapable of explaining where this "north central Victoria" begins and ends. Towns and genuine communities, regions or subdivisions are notable, but the subject of this article is none of these. Euryalus (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete PN and ors. No sensible justification can be made for it's keeping. Thewinchester (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete NC is not an official region, although several official and semi-official sources cover it - in particular water and environment . Therefore OR problems arise in trying to define it, and I tend to agree with Euryalus on the rest. Orderinchaos 14:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The unofficial and insufficiently defined nature of the region results in a superfluous, artificial entity that will lead to unnecessary overlapping between articles. Murtoa (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I thought for sure after reading the above opinions, that I would be on the delete crew. However, did anyone Google this? Really? Check it out: gov.au, NCCMA - North Central Catchment Management Authority (of Victoria), Waterwatch, The energy footprint for North Central Victoria, The Australian Society of Agronomy, Government document on secondary salinity, this list goes on and on. Obvious notability of an established region. I have a hard time believing most of the people above took the time to do a simple Google search before expressing their vehement denial of notability. The article is poorly written by some football fan, but this region most definitely exists - and in an established way. However, per nom, not much can be kept. Tanthalas39 (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I came off harsh. It's late and I'm tired. :-) Tanthalas39 (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a note, Lankiveil has commented on what was found his search abave should you wish to read what he said. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Given that there is nothing that can be kept (not even a definition of the term, given there are two contradictory ones) wouldn't it be better to delete this and start again.? I will check out your links shortly but as a former resident of the state for over 20 years, I wouldn't know it from a hole in the ground and I lived little more than 30 min drive from Kyneton and Woodend.  It has no common currency unlike other regions in Victoria such as Wimmera,. The Mallee, Gippsland or Western District but is a purely grab bag term as demonstrated earlier by Euryalus. Mattinbgn\talk 03:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly concede that the term is in use (and I'm probably one of the guilty ones referred to above by Tanthalas39!), but still have doubts as to its resonance. For example, the first of the links referenced above gov.au seems clear about North Central as a region, but look at the other regions it defines in Victoria - East Coast Victoria, Eastern Victoria, West Coast Victoria and Western Victoria.  These are all terms I'm unfamiliar with, after 27 years residency in the state, whereas the likes of Wimmera, The Mallee, Gippsland or Western District are alternative terms for Victorian regions in common parlance.  Ultimately I think the term in question is a regional aggregation that will serve little purpose. Murtoa (talk) 12:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and rewrite - what worries me about some of the delete votes is they are sort of saying this too - ie delete and rewrite - deletion often means no article should exist on this subject and I don't think that is the intention of all the opinions given. I believe an article should exist, is probably writable but needs referencing and balance.  I suspect there is no more meaningful name for the area and it would be nice to have the region covered like other regions in Australia.  Unfortunately I am unable to contribute to a rewrite / clean-up right now. I note there are several comments which support the view NC is not an official region, although several official and semi-official sources cover it - in particular water and environment [3]. Therefore OR problems arise in trying to define it  - when we wote the now featured article on the Riverina we had the same problem with conflicting definitions - it took a lot of research but all referenced and there not OR to sort this out - I don't beleive the issues raised are necessarily unsurmountable in writing an article about the region - we do have a regional approach in Australia but there is often inconsistency and it needs to be worked through - hence there will be no sharp boundaries but  suspect there will be an article subject witht hese inconsistencies (and commonalities) to be highlighted. --Matilda talk 23:06, 6 January 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.