Talk:Old Bourbon

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... The article is a mess right now (I didn't edit any content when I preformed the split), but I'm about to clean it up. Old Bourbon is a geographic area consisting of consists of thirty-four modern counties, named after the old much larger Bourbon County. It is not the same thing at the present day Bourbon County. --Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this article and Bourbon County, Kentucky had existed as separate articles, I'd propose merging them. There seems to be too little unique here to warrant a separate page - what is here can be easily enough rolled into the pre-existing article, and a redirect created here. JohnInDC (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of speedy deleting this article under WP:CSD#A10 as proposed, I redirected it back to Bourbon County, Kentucky as a compromise. People searching for "Old Bourbon" should get some meaningful result after all.

My attempt at compromise has been reverted back to the version proposed for speedy deletion. I will leave it for another admin to decide. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize you were an admin, or that the redirect was intended as a comprise. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's not that much unique here because the article needs to be devolved. The Bourbon County article has the following sections: Geography, Adjacent counties, History, and Demographics, Cities and towns. If this article were more devolved the History sections of the two articles would overlap, but otherwise this articles equivalent sections would be completely different. Further, "Old Bourbon" remained in use as term referring to the geographic region well after the county itself was partitioned. I've added the Adjacent counties section, and I'm planing to add a list of Old Bourbon's present-day counties. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. First it doesn't make sense to pull the material about bourbon whiskey out of the original article. That history is the history of both today's Bourbon County and Old Bourbon, and readers interested in the history of the whiskey are going to expect to find it in the article about today's Bourbon Country, not in an article about a place that they probably have never heard about and which hasn't existed as a political subdivision for 230 years. Second whatever there may be to be said about Old Bourbon - particularly something that can be reliably sourced - it is not going to be the same sort of stuff you see in article's about modern-day counties. Using the existing article as a template for content for Old Bourbon in order to give the thing some heft doesn't make sense to me. Is there really something useful (or sourceable) to be said, e.g., about the "Demographics" of the few thousand residents of the area in 1780? Another editor began the merge process - I'm going to complete it so that others can weigh in. JohnInDC (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The development of Boubrn Wisky took place in Maysville, which is in today's Mason County, Kentucky, not today's Bourbon County. That's a good point about Demographics (however we could cite the Census Bureau), I was concerning mention that that might be a possible exception in my post, but I didn't want to distract from my main point. I don't see how being a "former" county would affect the applicability of the other sections, but my main point in comparing that article's sections to this article's hypothetical sections was that the subjects of Bourbon County and Old Bourbon are very different, not that they should necessarily have the same sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 12:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first census didn't take place until 1790; data for Old Bourbon demographics may be tricky to find. As for the origin of bourbon - wherever within Old Bourbon it may have actually originated, the current Kentucky county is now its namesake and the subject certainly warrants mention there. Indeed the text as it existed noted that in fact the drink originated within the larger area. JohnInDC (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)We pretty routinely have two articles for a county over far less significant changes, for example Princess Anne County, Virginia and Virginia Beach, Virginia. Princess Anne County renamed itself "Virginia Beach" after it's most prominent city, and redesinated itself an "Independent city" for legal reasons. Incorporated cities in Virginia (in VA terminology "independent city") have almost the full rights and autonomy of counties , and due to a loophole (or perhaps more of a legal quirk then a loophole) a county can redesinate itself as an Independent city. Counties do for legal reasons, to keep actual cities from annexing their land. Princess Anne County is just an example, we have two articles for every VA county that redesignated itself a city.

I've also seen at least two cases having multiple articles because of being renamed (for example Dunmore County, Virginia before I merged it) but that might just be a case of WP:OTHERSTUFF. My point is that the articles are quite disteant, and the changes to Bourbon County were vastly more significant then being renamed or redesinated an independent city. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I see as different, separate information between these two articles right now is a list of adjacent counties. What else may be forthcoming? JohnInDC (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for declining the speedy

My rationale for declining speedy deletion is too long for the edit summary box, so I'm putting it here instead. The two pages are pretty similar right now, but the creator's clearly planning to expand it — the criterion is meant to cover unintended duplicates and content forks, not pages for which the creator uses content from elsewhere (properly attributed, too) as a basis for covering a related but different topic. The edit summary here is particularly significant for my decline, since the creator's clearly saying that this is a substantially larger region and nowhere near identical. Of course, all of this is independent of the possibility of merging or redirecting, and I'm neutral on that topic; I'm only interested in the speedy tagging. Nyttend (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]