 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
All references are now included. Most information contained on page is common knowledge to locals of Moogara, thus references are hard to attribute as it is known as fact. I believe there is no reason to delete this accurate account of the subject Moogara. Lookingforwardlookingback (talk) 05:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Lookingforwardlookingback. Although the information may be common knowledge to residents of Moogara, information added to Wikipedia must be verifiable. For example, you have not added article titles and page numbers to your references from The Mercury, so how is someone supposed to verify the information? Other editors have expressed concerns that the town doesn't meet notability guidelines. Do you have any more sources that discuss the town? I want to help you improve the article, hence why I have removed the speedy deletion tag (twice). :) Somno (talk) 05:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Here are some thoughts from a user in the UK: Moogara is clearly now only a small community - but it was significant enough to have a post office for nearly 60 years. To me, as a postal historian, that makes it notable, if only marginally so. Yes, it would be better if the references to The Mercury quoted article titles and page numbers, but is this a fatal defect? The post office dates (if anyone was so inclined) could probably be further verified by reference to Tasmania, the Postal History and Postal Markings, parts I & II, by Avery, Edwards, Ingles & Purves, (1975) Melbourne: Royal Philatelic Society of Victoria. There are many communities, especially in the USA (Monowi, Nebraska, for example) with a population of 10 or fewer whose Wiki page is not threatened with deletion. If the article remains, it can perhaps be usefully expanded. For example, what is the current population; are there any local amenities? NinetyCharacters (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't say not including dates and page numbers for references was a fatal defect, and am in fact the person who rescued the article from being speedily deleted. :) They should be added though. Thanks for your help, and hopefully it will help editors expand the article. Somno (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)