Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clover Park, New Zealand

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. The consensus in this discussion is that this article meets WP:NPLACE and there is also little articulated support for the deletion nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clover Park, New Zealand[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Proposing to merge/redirect to Flat Bush (Most of the area falls under Flat Bush). Not gazetted/included in Auckland Council's official map tool and fails GNG, no sigcov turns up in a search with most results pertaining to a school and one even stating the area is Otara: https://www.google.co.nz/books/edition/Addressing_Pupil_s_Behaviour/UlAAhkusknAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22clover+park%22+auckland&pg=PT109&printsec=frontcover Traumnovelle (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Heyallkatehere (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I admit to not understanding this nom, as a simple search of the NZ Herald brings up over 300 results about the suburb. SportingFlyer T·C 06:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at any of the articles? They're all appear to be generic news reports about incidents in the area and do not establish any notability to the place itself. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but those articles clearly define it as a place, Kia Aroha school says it's in Clover Park and not Ōtara, houses are listed as being in Clover Park on house listing websites, it exists in parliamentary debates including a parliamentary grant in 1986... places have some of the lowest notability thresholds on the entire website and I really don't see what's to be gained from deleting a perfectly good article about a place that is literally a point in the generic map box when you view the map, just because of some technicality. SportingFlyer T·C 19:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The threshold for places is WP:NPLACE. The relevant paragraph is this one:

Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it.

>it exists in parliamentary debates including a parliamentary grant in 1986...

There are records dating back to the 1800s of some places in my neighbourhood, yet no one outside of my neighbourhood, and even some of them won't know what they are. Simply existing is not grounds for an article and the information would be better off included in the relevant article/articles. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're proposing an area that is clearly defined by the census and is recognised by multiple NZ government entities does not qualify for an article because it's not included in a place names layer on a single website, which again would be an extreme technicality for our most permissive notability standard. SportingFlyer T·C 07:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting a place which fails WP:GNG and isn't recognised by New Zealand's official gazetteer nor by the regional authorities map tool doesn't qualify for an article. WP:NPLACE explicitly excludes census tracts and if stats nz areas were considered notable we'd have even more stubs with nothing more than demographic information and an infobox. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, it doesn't fail WP:GNG. Second, you're incorrectly and narrowly assuming legal recognition has to come from being gazetted, when it's clearly a place name which has some sort of legal recognition - the suburb address for the Clover Park Community House is Clover Park, not Flat Bush. SportingFlyer T·C 07:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Show me a source with significant coverage of it.

>you're incorrectly and narrowly assuming legal recognition has to come from being gazetted

It doesn't - it's just one way of being legally recognised.

>the suburb address for the Clover Park Community House is Clover Park

New Zealand Post doesn't define suburb names or boundaries so referring to them is pointless. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, recognised by Statistics New Zealand and the New Zealand Post Office, has Clover Park Community House, has a population of almost 10,000 people. It doesn't make sense to me to lump it in with Flat Bush, which already has a population of 45,000 people. As stated above, relevant news articles are given as occurring in Clover Park. Like most places in New Zealand, Auckland does not have official suburbs, but it does have wards and local boards, so the suggestion of a merge would be more appropriate to Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board or Manukau ward, except no one would ever list those as part of their address. The larger body in human terms would be South Auckland.-Gadfium (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Statistical/census areas are not considered for NPLACE due to issues with them. 'Auckland University' is a statistical area for example, but it obviously isn't a suburb/locality. Other areas listed by them include: Botany Junction, Redcastle, Armoy, Middlefield, Savonna, and Baverstock. None of these have articles because they're non-notable areas that aren't gazetted.

Suburbs in Auckland have official recognition via the gazetter or on Auckland Council's geomaps (which is where the Council refers you to for road boundaries and whatnot) Traumnovelle (talk) 02:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it necessarily matters, but none of those areas you listed are considered suburbs by either Openstreetmap or Google Maps, which even displays a distinct suburb boundary for Clover Park when you type it in. SportingFlyer T·C 07:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter because those sites use user generated submissions which cannot be used to establish notability. Please read through WP:NPLACE. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very familiar with NPLACE, I started that sentence with "not that it necessarily matters." I just wanted to note you threw out a number of false equivalencies. SportingFlyer T·C 07:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because this place has an article which could potentially lead to why user generated sources may have it listed? Traumnovelle (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't work that way - a definitional polygon on Google Maps would not be created because of a spurious Wikipedia article, especially in a country where they wouldn't need to use user generated data to be accurate. But again, we're veering away from AfD relevancy... SportingFlyer T·C 07:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this seems to me to exceed WP:NPLACE as a search turned up a bunch of mentions, including a direct mention in the media by a PM. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 07:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which one of those do you find to be non-trivial coverage? Traumnovelle (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NPLACE. Non-trivial coverage here for example: [1]. Paora (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is literally what trivial coverage is, coverage where something is mentioned but not explained or any detail is given about it: 'addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content' Traumnovelle (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per comments above... recognized by Statistics New Zealand and meets WP:NPLACE. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 21:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

> Census tracts ... are not presumed to be notable

Census locations cannot provide notability, terrible precedent to assume they do and you'd have to apply the same logic to dozens of non-notable housing developments and areas no one has heard of. If it is actually notable then why is it not recognised by the Council or the Gazetteer? Traumnovelle (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing. SportingFlyer T·C 02:10, 12 June 2024 (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.