Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashfield South, New South Wales

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete because it does not appear to exist. -- Joolz 01:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ashfield South, New South Wales

Was listed for speedy deletion, but is not a speedy candidate. No vote from me. Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 11:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - substub with very limited info, but info all the same which could potentially be of use. Also has the potential to be expanded. CLW 12:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Precedent is that suburbs should be listed under the city they are in. Delete unless expanded. Pilatus 12:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per CLW. Kappa 14:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep provided such a municipality exists. — JIP | Talk 16:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep All real communities. I do not believe the precedent referred to by Pilatus exists - there are many cities with dozens of articles about districts or sububs. CalJW 19:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Extremely Strong Delete, because this suburb does not exist!:
  • There is a state government body that defines suburbs called the Geographical Names Board of New South Wales. You can search their database, and I encourage you to do exactly that, because it will reveal there is no suburb called "Ashfield South" or "South Ashfield".
  • There is a federal government body called Geoscience Australia, which is "the national agency for geoscience research and geospatial information", and it has a database on place names of Australia, which you can search here, and I encourage you to do exactly that, because it will reveal there is no suburb called "Ashfield South" or "South Ashfield".
  • Local knowledge: I have lived less than 200 metres from Ashfield for the past 9 years, and I have never heard of this suburb called "Ashfield South".
  • Street Directory: The definitive Sydney street directory is called the UBD, and it contains a comprehensive list of "Suburbs and Localities". This list does not contain any entry for "Ashfield South" or "South Ashfield".
  • When I asked the person who added these suburbs about this, they indicated there was "a bit of gunk" in the data they were using.
  • The local council which would cover this suburb (if it existed) defines the actual suburbs it covers, and it says "the Municipality includes Ashfield, Summer Hill, Haberfield, the eastern part of Croydon and the fringes of Croydon Park, Hurlstone Park and Ashbury." Note that there is no mention of "Ashfield South" or "South Ashfield".
  • The current list of Sydney suburbs should be fairly complete and definitive (errors and omissions can happen of course, but I'd venture to say it's now > 95% accurate), and myself and others have put a lot of effort into making it as accurate as we can, so if something is not on that list then it's most probably not a suburb.
  • For all of the above factual reasons, if you do not delete this entry, then there is something very seriously wrong. In fact, when I mentioned that there was to be a vote over whether to delete a ficitional suburb to my partner she burst out laughing, and proceeded to ruthlessly mock the Wikipedia, and in all honesty she's got a very valid point. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 00:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • There has to be a vote, not because a fictional suburb is so controversial, but because if there were no review process then someone could just go in and delete Sydney. --DavidConrad 05:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I know, I just feel there has got to be a better way. For example, let me make a constructive suggestion: if an article or redirect is less than 1 week old, then any logged in user with > 1000 edits can speedy delete. Also any user should be able to speedy delete any article where they are the only contributor, irrelevant of article age, or whether they are anon (which would make it easier for people to fix silly mistakes). That would prevent Sydney from being deleted, and it would also prevent anons from deleting new valid content created by others, yet it would allow everyone to fix their own mistakes. Essentially it would allow a reasonable level of trust that is currently lacking from the deletion process, whilst avoiding the worst problems. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 00:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Nickj. The Gregory's Street Directory for Sydney doesn't list this suburb as a suburb or locality. Capitalistroadster 00:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Nickj. --rob 01:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Nickj G Clark 02:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Change vote to delete as per Nickj CLW 05:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Nickj, and thanks for doing the research on this. --DavidConrad 05:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, name doesn't seem to be used by anywhere other than the confused lists of the Department of Local Government. JPD 08:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Nickj. Ambi 11:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Nickj. It is not listed by Australia Post, either. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.