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 (NAC). Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aberfoyle, Warwick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails notability guideline. The article relies largely or entirely upon a single source. I have searched for additional sources but found a lack of sources. Thank you, New9374 (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features), "Places with protected status (e.g. protected areas, national heritage sites, cultural heritage sites) and named natural features, with verifiable information beyond simple statistics are presumed to be notable." Australia devolved their national heritage recognition scheme, the Register of the National Estate (the equivalent of the National Register of Historic Places), to the states in 2007; as such, the Queensland Heritage Register (which it is listed upon) is the highest possible level of heritage recognition it could have. It is also listed in the Australian Heritage Database due to the fact it was pending assessment for the National Estate when that was abolished, so the nominator didn't look for sources very hard. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will also note that the nominator is currently engaged in an editorial dispute with the author in which he has taken an extremely hostile attitude, so I find his sudden interest in deleting her articles a little bit dubious. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please do not quote out of context. Per Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features), it is "presumed to be notable but not guaranteed, to be notable." I cannot find it on the Australian National Heritage List website anyway. Could you please provide a link? Regardless the Queensland Heritage Council (and Australian Heritage Council^{[citation needed]}) hold a legal relationship with the topic under the Queensland Heritage Act 1992 (and Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999) so they are not independent sources. Could you please demonstrate the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to establish notability? Thank you, New9374 (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is the most creative and absurd attempt at doing an end-run around notability guidelines I've ever seen. No, places having the protected status that Wikipedia notability criteria specifically and explicitly refers to does not mean the bodies determining said protected status (which frequently have the most detailed, expert commentary upon them) are not independent sources because they have a "legal relationship with the topic". We have multiple historic place WikiProjects internationally that would be colossally affected if that oddball interpretation were to succeed. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Could you please provide a link to the topic on the Australian National Heritage List website anyway? Could you please provide links to reliable sources other than the heritage councils that significantly cover the topic? Thank you, New9374 (talk) 03:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • @The Drover's Wife: By your own admission, Aberfoyle, Warwick was never listed on the Register of the National Estate so it is not a national heritage site and it never has been. Also, the Queensland Heritage Register is not the highest possible level of heritage recognition it could have ― the Commonwealth Heritage List is. So, again, you are misinterpreting Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features), it states that "national heritage sites [...] are presumed to be notable, but not guaranteed, to be notable" ― not state heritage sites. Thank you, New9374 (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • The Commonwealth Heritage List, is, as the article plainly states, only for sites that are owned by the Commonwealth government, which Aberfoyle, like most of Australia, has not been. As I said, Australia devolved the Register of the National Estate to the states (as that article also plainly explains), so the highest level of recognition possible (and the legislative role of the National Estate) was instead given to the state heritage registers. This is not complex, and we have many WikiProjects working in filling in coverage of all the equivalent registers around the world under this exact same notability criteria. This is far from the first time you haven't bothered even reading the Wikipedia articles you're trying to cite because you're more focused on trying to "gotcha" someone you've decided to argue with than paying attention to fact or policy. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep apparently notable listed building. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please demonstrate the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to establish notability? Thank you, New9374 (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: listed on three heritage registers in Australia. Kerry (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please provide a link to the topic on the Australian National Heritage List website? Could you please provide links to reliable sources other than the heritage councils that significantly cover the topic? Thank you, New9374 (talk) 08:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Appears on a number of heritage registers.Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please demonstrate the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to establish notability? Thank you, New9374 (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Placing the same message after every keep vote borders on badgering. Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then answer me. Per Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features), national heritage sites are "presumed to be notable but not guaranteed, to be notable.". Could you please demonstrate the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to establish notability? Thank you, New9374 (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: listed heritage site.--Grahame (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I am not qualified to vote here. I would however say that not every National Heritage Register building (or equivalent) should necessarily have an article: some countries just have too many of them. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron: Thank you Peterkingiron. I appreciate your comment. However this building is not even listed on any of Australia's national heritage registers and it never has been. It is just listed on the Queensland Heritage Register, a state heritage register. Many of the !voters are Australian, which is okay, I just think that having this standalone article about a state heritage site without independent sources and without country-specific notability guidelines established by the Historic sites WikiProject, has led to a systemic bias in coverage. Regardless it still needs to be demonstrated that Aberfoyle, Warwick has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish notability. Thank you, New9374 (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, Australia devolved the Register of the National Estate (the Australian equivalent of the National Register of Historic Places, which has a major WikiProject of its own) to the states in 2007, making the state registers the highest form of heritage listing possible for places such as Aberfoyle, and shifting the federal role in the protection of national heritage to the states. The remaining federal role in heritage protection is extremely limited and not equivalent to other nations (e.g. the Commonwealth Heritage List, which this user did not bother to read the article for, is only for federal land). This user (both here and elsewhere) seems to have a habit of trying to "win" fights he's decided to pick rather than familarising himself with anything he's actually talking about first. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:02, 5 July 2016 (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.