Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parochialism in Sydney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parochialism in Sydney

anti-Sydney rant, original research/POV Deuterium 12:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak delete for now, I'll change my vote if this article is improved to something similar to Westies. Addhoc 12:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This article was created during discussions at Talk:Westies (people) and to resolve an NPOV issue in the Wikipedia. You are welcome to participate in this discussion.
After the deletion of Easties a NPOV problem was created. Editors have been attempting to address this problem and to cover this issue in it entirety. Further reading is at User talk:Richardshusr/Easties (people). you should acquaint yourself with all the issues before rushing to judgement. (My position was that both articles should have been deleted but some editors pushed for Easties to be deleted and Westies kept, thus the NPOV issue.)--WikiCats 13:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment on your comment, Ok I didn't realise, and thanks for explaining, however currently the article is well below the quality of Westies, so I think weak delete is fair. Addhoc 15:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is a stub and there is a basis for creating this article per the explanation provide by WikiCats above although there might be debate about the best title for it. I have expanded the stub a bit but a lot more work needs to be done. --Richard 16:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Anti-Sydney rant. Don't keep and set a poor precedent. michael talk 16:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Cited references are a blog entry, and an editorial. BigE1977 20:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for being a soapbox. BigHaz 22:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There could be a case for a Regions of Sydney discussing the different areas of Sydney. However, this doesn't provide much of a basis for this article. Capitalistroadster 00:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


  • Comment Parochialism in Sydney was the result of consensus here: Talk:Westies_(people)#Layout. After Easties was deleted and Westies kept it created a NPOV issue for the Wikipedia.
Editors have been in discussion to address this problem. The problem of NPOV has to be solved. If this article is deleted you can be assured that this crisis will be solved. Another article will be created. As long as one part of Sydney’s name calling war is portrayed (Westies), then the whole of the battle must be described.
I invite Deuterium, Addhoc, michael, Bige1977, BigHaz and Capitalistroadster to contribute here [1] to solving this issue for the Wikipedia. --WikiCats 03:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Not being a Sydneysider myself, my knowledge of the stereotypes that one part of the city has for the other are going to be slim at best. That said, what we have here is and will remain (unless those involved in solving the NPOV problems on that article help with contributions here) an unsourced and potentially inaccurate series of comments. BigHaz 04:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I support the deletion of all these silly terms; they have no place on Wikipedia. michael talk 13:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I can't be much clearer. When one part of Sydney's name calling war was deleted it created a NPOV problem. The war was determined to be caused by Sydney's Parochialism. --WikiCats 04:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
In that case, perhaps all the parts of the war should go, particularly if they aren't all equally notable. Another alternative would be to subsume all the constituent parts into one article (such as this one), so that everything can be in the one place rather than risking deletion for non-notability or other reasons when it's split off into separate articles. A third alternative, particularly if there's some overarching need to have this particular article here, would be to add more sources to this one. BigHaz 07:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The idea that the deletion of Easties caused a NPOV problem can only come from a misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, and so should not be mentioned in this discussion. Having said that, I did agree previously that the material that WikiCats and Richard are trying to cover in this article could make a good article if well researched. However, I think it would be better as a section of a cleaned up Culture of Sydney than in this form. I guess I'm saying merge. JPD (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Culture of Sydney per JPD. --Arnzy (whats up?) 11:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


  • Comment The Culture of Sydney is about multiculturalism. It is about people getting along with each other. I don't think that they would be happy about making it to an article about Sydney's name calling war.
In any case, I have added several more references. --WikiCats 11:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That article isn't and shouldn't be simply about multiculturalism or people getting along with each other. Any information worth having one these subcultures and stereotypes also should be talked about simply as a name calling war, but in a broader context. The Regions in Sydney suggestion from Capitalistroadster is another place where this might be covered in a broader context, but trying to only describe some "name calling war" is not helping anything. JPD (talk) 11:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Why would Wikipedia benefit from an article that is more or less going to be a class, ethnic and political battleground? You cannot speak for everyone in this article or cover all views; these type of terms are best left as hearsay and opinion. michael talk 11:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per michael. I originally merely placed a {{bias}} tag on the article, and came under a bit of fire because of it (see talkpage for juicy details, if you want 'em). An article such as this could never fully conform to the policies of NPOV and, to some extent, original research. Personal opinions do not an article make. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 13:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep I created this article during discussion with other editors.
  • This debate is not a vote
  • The article was nominated for deletion within minutes of being started. It has been rewritten in neutral prose.
  • The article was proposed as a solution to a NPOV issue that had arisen after the deletion of one point of view in the Sydney name calling dispute
  • This is an attempt at an umbrella article to cover all points of view
  • Parochialism is an article that exists
  • One of the issues Westies (people) exists
  • The article is verifiable with numerous notable references
  • The article is not original research
  • The article is written from a neutral point of view in neutral prose
--WikiCats 03:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Other articles similar to this one, such as Westies, should also be deleted. Slang terms to represent petty class, ethnic and political differences in Sydney do not need articles dedicated to them. Such an article will be based on biased sources (the primary source at the moment is from an online opinion column) and will also be succeptible to easy manipulation by those who want to discredit other groups. Article neutrality can't be claimed when the sources are opinionated.

I don't want to think about how poor an article on parochialism in my home city would be. michael talk 04:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment This sets a pretty poor precedent. Parochialism in Adelaide... Brisbane... Perth... Wooloomooloo... where are we going with this? — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 10:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This style of parochialism seems largely unique to Sydney and is well documented. --WikiCats 11:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not sold on this "well documented" idea. The links provided on the article mention the general concept of parochialism in Sydney (so we know it exists, but nothing more). Failing that, the ones which actually identify more about the phenomenon are blogs and the like, which are questionable sources. It might be my Historian Hat talking here, but for something to be "well documented", there really should be more neutral sources talking about how the different parts of the city are viewed or perceived. This is the sort of thing I'd imagine a sociologist would have written something on, for example. BigHaz 12:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging that parochialism in Sydney exists. There's one blog to demonstrate usage. There are notable references such as the Macquarie Dictionary/Book of Slang and the Sydney Morning Herald publication. --WikiCats 13:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Your sources are by no means reputable or "well documented". Two of them are opinion peices, two are simply small dictionary entries (if anywhere on Wikimedia, the slang terms should be on Wiktionary, not Wikipedia), and in one case, a comment replying to a blog post. Another speaks of the non-existence of 'parochialism in Sydney'. michael talk 13:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete any discussion on such phenomena is more appropriate to a broader article on Sydney culture, provided it is supported by reliable sources. This article is not, and appears little more than a fork.--cj | talk 13:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment Richardshusr has posted a request for feedback on the article. You may wish to give feedback to help him improve the article, rather than just deleting it. I noticed it has some references, and a quick glance does not reveal any severe problems. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:04, 30 August 2006 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.