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 article is one of many mass-produced stubs, and appears to be a simple misreading. "Unincorporated Top End Region" appears on a map to indicate that the area is unincorporated, not that it is incorporated with the word "Unincorporated" at the beginning of its title Imaginatorium (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
(Followup comment by proposer) Note that I added a comment to Top End to the effect that much/most of it is unincorporated. This is probably, I submit, all that needs to be said about the local government (non-)arrangements in this region. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Author Comment I already explained Imaginatorium about this. Look like he is not paying much attention and recommending articles to delete. This is completely wasting my time and others and also others also explained him about this. Please refer this too: https://regional.gov.au/local/publications/reports/2014_2015/National_LGA_15.pdf. Reference one is clearly noted "Finniss-Mary is part of Unincorporated Top End Region" as it is mentioned in the articles. I also informed him the cousil structure in England is differed from the administration structure in Australia by informing him "administration structures are differed from country to country" based on his reply.Shevonsilva (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He is also recommending to delete a 2nd level administrative division of the world 6th largest country. 17:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment I'm not familiar with the general practices for these stubs, but it seems like what can be said about Unincorporated Top End Region can be covered in Northern Territory. I found this explanation on a gov't pdf:The Unincorporated Top End Region contains those areas in the NT that are not part of an incorporated local government council area and therefore no local government consents or licenses are anticipated to be required for the development of the CBC and BMC.Schazjmd (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since you seem to claim to be an expert on this, can you explain what exactly is the "administration structure" of the part of NT which is unincorporated in the "Top End" region? Can you say anything which might convince me that you understand what "unincorporated" means? Imaginatorium (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The nearest interpretation i found is unincorporated = Unlike many other countries, Australia has only one level of local government immediately beneath state and territorial governments. A local government area (LGA) often contains several towns and even entire cities. Thus, aside from very sparsely populated areas and a few other special cases, almost all of Australia is part of an LGA. Unincorporated areas are often in remote locations, cover vast areas or have very small populations. Postal addresses in unincorporated areas, as in other parts of Australia, normally use the suburb or locality names gazetted by the relevant state or territorial government. Thus, there is rarely any ambiguity regarding addresses in unincorporated areas. and the above interpretation is also covering idea of administrative structures related to unincorporated regions. Shevonsilva (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The current stub says less than the entry in the table Current local government areas, and I am not sure that there is much more that could be said. Having gone to that table, I also saw the stub article for Darwin Rates Act Area. In the table, that name is followed in brackets by 'East Arm', and I think that East Arm is a much more likely search term. A major feature at East Arm is Port Darwin, but that article says nothing about which local government area (LGA) it is in. If it is the Darwin Rates Act Area (I will have to check more), it would be much more useful to have the LGA named in the Port Darwin article than have a separate stub. I'm not sure about the Unincorporated Top End Region, which has in brackets 'Finnis-Mary' (presumably meant to be Finniss-Mary). I think it may be the LGA for two geographically separated areas, around the Finniss River southwest of Darwin, and the Mary River east of Darwin. I'll check for more information and think about where it would most usefully be included. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming "LGA" is "Local Government Area", which surely means an area having a local government entity. But this is (part of) the majority unincorporated area of Northern Territories, and has no local government. It is therefore not an "LGA". User:Imaginatorium (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The idea that the Unincorporated Top End Area is an LGA is oxymoronic, or so it seems: if it's unincorporated, how can it have local government? This isn't the USA, where you have county governments everywhere, and they're generally a mix of municipalities and unincorporated areas. Meanwhile, citation #1 treats unincorporated territory the same way, regardless of whether it's most of the territory (pre-reform) or just occasional bits (post-reform). So I suspect that the contents are entirely wrong, and while it may be reasonable to have an article covering these places, it wouldn't keep any of the current content. Note that ((Local Government Areas of the Northern Territory)) gained a link to this title in May 2011, courtesy of ClaretAsh, but that seems like a convenience thing (in the USA, we do this regularly, e.g. the "unorganized territories" section of ((Piscataquis County, Maine))) so the unincorporated areas wouldn't get left out. Nyttend (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have modified the content to remove the disambiguity and depending on the consensus, it can be modified again. The exact term "Unincorporated Top End Region" is the general term used and I must be there as I believe. Thanks. Before recommending something to delete, please search about it clearly with regading its own context. Shevonsilva (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Before writing articles, please make sure that they're accurate, instead of creating nonsense. If you resume creating pages like this after your hand heals, you will be blocked. Nyttend (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep not sure what most of the discussion really shows about understanding some of the more idiosyncratic aspects of governance over land in the Northern Territory, but my position is, if it is indentified as being part of the land of the Northern Territory, however slight the stub might be I see no reason to delete it. JarrahTree06:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis of WP:TNT, the article being so minimal that it is highly confusing and hence misleading. The subject looks like it is just the statistical collation of left over non contiguous areas which are not otherwise incorporated. This either needs to be properly explained, and thence with whatever data is relevant, OR it becomes simply a redirect and merge to a main Northern Territory article where the left over bits can be described. The content of a lot of the good faith but opposing discussion points above I suggest demonstrates the current encyclopedic failings of the article. Aoziwe (talk) 10:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did you properly check the article? You can click on hyperlinks if you don't understand any part. Which part is misleading? did you check what we are talking here? Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and yes. I had to read through the references to work out what the article was about. A reader should not have to do that. If a reader cannot get a basic understanding of the subject matter by reading the article, which by definition is why an article exists at all, then the article has a serious problem. For example, the text is an unincorporated area as far as I can tell from the references is simply wrong. As far as I can tell it should read something like is an administrative grouping of unincorporated areas. I suggest if the article was fit for purpose it would not be at AfD at all. If you feel I still have the wrong end of the stick then I suggest it just adds weight to my belief that the article is critically lacking. It should not be too hard for someone who knows a bit about LGAs, etc., in the NT to fix. Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aoziwe, it may look from the stub as if it is "the statistical collation of left over non contiguous areas which are not otherwise incorporated", but it's not - it's two areas, which may be contiguous, I'm not sure. (I found a good map yesterday, but can't find it now.) There are other unincorporated regions, including 3 others which could be considered part of the Top End - Alyangula, Nhulunbuy Corporation (does that still apply, now the mine has closed, I wonder??) and "Darwin Rates Act Area". Without any further information, I agree that this stub is highly confusing, and not helpful at all. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This link, currently reference 4, as far as I can tell names fivefour geographically separate areas making up the Unincorporated Top End Region. Cheers. Aoziwe (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that makes it even more confusing. That is certainly not what the article Local government areas of the Northern Territory indicates, as it lists Nhulunbuy, Alyangula, and the "Darwin Rates Act Area" separately from the "Unincorporated Top End Region". The ABS page definitely includes Yulara, so the population figures don't apply to this article. At the moment, that seems to be all I'm sure about! If I had time, and as I live in the NT, I could maybe ask in the relevant department (surely an NT government department, not the federal Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development which prepared that map???) - but that's unlikely for a few weeks at least. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the ABS page is for "Unincorporated NT", which is not the same as the unincorporated Top End. The latter forms part of unincorporated NT. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I am also going for WP:TNT, despite the article having only one sentence, and despite the creator's best intentions. The discussion here shows how confusing that sentence is! The article Local government areas of the Northern Territory may be slightly confusing in including unincorporated areas in the table of LGAs - I think that may be because they are defined in and excluded from the NT Local Government Act, which I have been trying to find online (so far without success). I think the unincorporated areas are more accurately termed Statistical Local Areas [1], which is an Australian Bureau of Statistics term, but it seems that the NT calls them Local Government Areas even though they have no local government. A confusing state of affairs which is not helped by this article, unfortunately. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I support the retention for much the same reasons as 'JarrahTree'. For your information, I have edited the article including the replacement of "Category:Local government areas of the Northern Territory" with "Category:Unincorporated areas of the Northern Territory". Also, I have upgraded "Template:Local Government Areas of the Northern Territory" to identified the unincorporated areas existing in the NT. I will continue to add to the article tomorrow as it is late in South Australia. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 12:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest the adding the coords as you have is highly misleading. As far as I can tell, there are four separate areas making up the region, each separated by hundreds of kilometers, at three very different corners of the compass, with large incorporated areas between them. I really do think the article needs a complete reset, and any map and infobox needs to show the four areas as per the current reference 4 does. Aoziwe (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
HI Aoziwe, I disgree with your statement. The coordinates are NOT misleading; they are representative. The infobox template used on the article only allows for one set of coordinates; I look at a source (i.e. Division of Lingiari map at AEC map) and noticed that the Unincorporated Top End Region includes the Litchfield National Park which is a well-known place if you have lived in the Northern Territory. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Where did these coordinates come from? Were they reliably sourced? On Google maps the coordinates are about half wway between Adelaide River and Litchfield while this map shows areas well to the east stretching from the coast in the north to almost as far south as Katherine's latitude. The coords are not representative of this region at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is misleading, although there are only two areas (Finniss River area, and Mary River area) within this unincorporated area, and they are not separated by hundreds of kilometers! The ABS "Unincorporated NT", now included in a reference in the article, shows ALL the unincorporated areas in the NT, not just the "Unincorporated Top End Region". Zoom in and move around on the map on the ABS link, and you will also see Nhulunbuy in East Arnhem, Alyangula on Groote Eylandt, the "Darwin Rates Act Area" under the letters WIN in Darwin, and Yulara near Uluru in Central Australia. They are all unincorporated areas, but not part of this "Unincorporated Top End Region", which comprises the Finniss region (to the west of Darwin) and the Mary region (to the east of Darwin), and which appears to be separated only by a small stretch of the Stuart Highway. Having any article about the "Unincorporated Top End Region" which does not show a map with those two regions highlighted would be useless (as this discussion here rather shows!) RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I meant to add, the population given by the ABS is for all the unincorporated areas, not just for the one this article is about, so that should also be removed from this article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How many maps and definitions are there of this thing called "Unincorporated Top End Region"? This NTFederal Government link, currently reference 2, defines "Unincorporated Top End Region" as four areas (Finniss, Douglas-Daly, Nhulunby, Alyangula, the latter two being a very long way from the former two). This ABS link seems to define "Unincorporated Top End Region" as only one area (Finniss-Mary) and does not provide any separate data for it, instead using the legacy statistical unit of a very different thing called "Unincorporated NT". From the (sub)area names you have provided there seems to be a third definition? All this just goes to show that the current article is fatally flawed. If we are to have an article called "Unincorporated Top End Region" it must correctly go into this type of detail. Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aoziwe, very good question! I am not at all sure how accurate that first map is (a federal government map, not an NT one) - it shows Douglas-Daly where other maps have the "Mary" part of Finniss-Mary. Douglas-Daly is probably the lower part of that region (see [2]), but I would be very surprised if it was used to refer to the whole of the area extending to the northern coast, as shown on the government map. That's where the Mary River is. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean where I found Douglas-Daly? That was just Google Maps, which that #2 is a link to - but if it doesn't work for you, just google Douglas-Daly, and I expect you'll see what I did. I just looked at the website of the NT Dept of Local Government, Housing and Community Development before, and there really is no Local Government Act online - just a review report dated (I think) 2016. There are maps of the local government areas, but none of the areas that don't have local governments. Not very helpful! RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks RebeccaGreen. I found the google maps version of Douglas-Daly BUT that is different from the "Fed" version. It shows only the southern portion and does not refer to the northeastern portion in the "Fed" version. Just more confusion. Without some expert authority to sort it all out this article, any references I can find are just all contradictory and any article it seems at this point in time is simply unsafe. Aoziwe (talk) 09:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Google maps show postal code arrangement withing 0822 NT area. Reference 2 shows statistical area. These area are administratively under the relevant state or territorial governmentShevonsilva (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shevonsilva, in my reply to Aoziwe, I referred to the link to Google maps that I included in my comment above, starting "very good question". It shows the Douglas-Daly region. I was not referring to any references included in the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason for the deletion for is "The article is one of many mass-produced stubs, and appears to be a simple misreading. "Unincorporated Top End Region" appears on a map to indicate that the area is unincorporated, not that it is incorporated with the word "Unincorporated" at the beginning of its title", and, now it is clear that the reason is not right. I hope we can keep the article. Thank. Shevonsilva (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, at the time the article was nominated it said The Unincorporated Top End Region is a local government area of the Northern Territory, Australia,[3] which is clearly not correct and was indeed "a simple misreading". That there is still confusion over what actually constitutes the region to the point that incorrect population figures and coordinates have been added still does not bode well for the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Confused The NT_LGA_15 map that is used as a reference to the statement that there are two areas shows 4 as it includes "Nhulunby" (I think it means Nhulunbuy) and Alyangula as well. Local government areas of the Northern Territory has a table that includes unincorporated areas including one called "Nhulunbuy Corporation". Is there any government department (at any level) that treats the Unincorporated Top End Region in aggregate, but differently from the rest of the seven unincorporated areas of the NT? If so, I would !vote to keep this article and include that information. if not, then this article has little meaning and needs to be deleted and/or split to each unincorporated area or merged to an article covering them all. The article as it stood when i read it doesn't mean anything. --Scott DavisTalk03:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The second reference notes the aggregation with the statement, "Alyangula and Nhulunbuy townships both come under a Special Purpose Lease, East Arm is on Darwin Rates Act Area land, Finniss-Mary is part of Unincorporated Top End Region and Yulara township is currently owned by private interests."Shevonsilva (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.