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 keep. Deletion is not cleanup. If other admin action is needed to keep the article in good shape, please let me know. Courcelles (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wyangala[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TNT. Article was good at some undeterminable point (it had several hundred edits in its first week or so, all by the article creator/main contributor). Just to give an idea of the subject, this is a village of 227 people. There are four or five times more edits to the article than the population of the place. Anyhow, I found this due to an SPI. It appears that the article creator (who GA-nommed the article) and the account who passed it (User:JSWho) are likely to be related. From his contribs, JSWho commented on an AfD of a company owned by one "F. Valzano" and passed the GA on this article for his second edit, then disappeared until the AfD.

Because of the suspicious nom, I sent the article to GA reassessment. At that time, my due diligence found that a portion of the history section failed verification to any of the sources listed for it (which were in the article prior to the GA nom). As a matter of fact this diff when the article was a week or so old has the right source for the information, but that only verifies a small piece. It also took me a half-hour of stepping through diffs to find said information, and there are hundreds of edits prior to this diff where other factual info changed. Given the inappropriate GA nom, the lack of interest in a community reassessment to avoid delisting, and the sheer amount of time it's going to take to source existing prose as opposed to using the sources (some of the older of which other users cleaned out two weeks after the GA passed as not meeting RS), I would like the article nuked. MSJapan (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the article's talk page and/or RfC is more appropriate than AfD for rewrites. Esquivalience ^t 02:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Esquivalience, I believe their intention (based on our IRC conversation) is that the page should be nuked and rewritten from scratch because it's fundamentally un-fixable. Primefac (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that somehow not made clear? MSJapan (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Wipe it clean, wipe it all clean.' (that is, 'delete'). DS (talk) 05:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:WP:TNT appears to be a view not a guideline. Deleting something might be appropriate if the information is considered to created in bad faith and to be wrong to a significant degree. In this case the town exists and there is no reason to believe that the creator does not believe all the info to be correct, even though it is poorly sourced and is disproportionate in some sense. It is fairly harmless and it does not appear to me to favour any substantial commercial interest, rather it is the work of a local enthusiast. I'm not sure why we need to discourage these efforts so much. Certainly if it was nuked it would never be recreated in any substantial form.--Grahame (talk) 02:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I actually am going to recreate it, but it's easier to work from scratch from the sources than to try to figure out what's right and what isn't - there are too many minor edits in too short a time to ascertain what's correct and what isn't. As I noted, it took me a half hour to binary search down just one source change, and there's a lot more that simply doesn't match with what's there, so I'm basically hamstrung by the prose at this point. MSJapan (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no need to delete an article to rewrite it. Draft up the new text 'from scratch' in a sandbox from the supplied sources, then replace the old text with the new as a standard edit (with clear edit summaries and possibly an explanation on the talk page). -- saberwyn 01:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's definitely a verified population center. [1] There is nothing about this place to exclude it from WP:GEOLAND. You see that the article is a mess? So fix it. Reduce it to a stub. Deletion is not cleanup. --Oakshade (talk) 03:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't see why it should be deleted. If it needs a re-write, that is what it needs. That is not a valid reason for deletion. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could certainly do with a tidy up, but there's no reason to delete it: the village is obviously notable Nick-D (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's currently an on-going discussion at User:Doc James/Paid editing#7. Delete articles by paid editors following the Orangemoody case whereby the hundreds of articles created were deleted and some re-created. The use of WP:TNT is being widely talked about as being needed as a deletion rationale to respond to paid-editing that intentionally abuses the system. If large scale rings like this suffer only blocks but their work remains in place, then these professional attempts at getting around the system will easily find ways to hop IPs meanwhile their "product" is still delivered or salvageable. TNT right now may be an uncommon deletion rationale because the issue isn't notable versus not notable. The problem isn't necessarily WP:SURMOUNTABLE because the problem doesn't lie with the content but rather the creators/writers. These policies have never factored in what the community needs to do to shut down mass paid editing abuses. Mkdw^talk 04:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This would make sense if this were a paid editing case, but this has nothing to do with paid editing so I'm not sure what your point is. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, "fundamentally fixable". I came here because of the mention in User:Doc James/Paid editing#7. Delete articles by paid editors, but I disagree there is a similarity to Orangemoody. This looks more like we have a goodfaith editor who like many newbies may not have yet grasped all our policies, demonstrating NPOV and verifiability by improving the article would be a good thing, deleting or stubbing it rather less so. No onjection to TNT being used where we have an article written by someone caught adding falsehood or editing for pay, I just don't see either of those justifications even alleged re this article. Ϣere SpielChequers 07:15, 7 September 2015 (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.