Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regions of sydney
Source: 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 keep. Delete arguments appear to be largely unfounded or have been addressed. Mangojuicetalk 17:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regions of sydney
- Regions of sydney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Unsourced list which add no meaning to any articles or Wikipedia Bidgee (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete, or keep and cleanup. The article is indeed in awful shape, but with some referencing, formatting, categorization and rewriting, I can see this being useful. If nothing else it can be merged into Sydney, Australia. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have no idea where these came from, but they're certainly not in regular use (with the exception of Northern Beaches, which is only a general hand-wave indication rather than a defined district). Appears to be in recent use by some government agencies but certainly not "regions" by any meaningful stretch. Orderinchaos 17:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Content is entirely factual, and the listed regional names are certainly all in common use. Needs sources and cleanup, not deletion. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the stupidest comment I've seen in over 5 years as a WP contributor. If you are incapable of conducting rational discourse in comprehensible English, you have no place contributing to WP. --Gene_poole (talk) 05:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rather then trying to undermine other editors try and find sources in which state fact. I've also raised the statment you just made on AN/I. Bidgee (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm convinced he wasn't talking to you, since his statement has no apparent connection to what you said. But whatever he claims is the "stupidest" comment he's seen in 5 years, he must not get out much. I see 100-times "stupider" comments every day, and that's not even counting the ones I make! :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are incapable of conducting rational discourse in comprehensible English, you have no place contributing to WP. is rather insulting comment to make since if he looked at what I've contributed he would find that I have a place here to contribute on WP but the comment he made should be withdrawn otherwise If he can't contribute with other editors which I can then maybe he needs to take a good look at himself and they way he behaves with other editors who may not have the same view as him. Bidgee (talk) 06:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a fair statement. My point is that there is nothing he's saying that seems to refer to anything in your comment. None of the claims he makes in that statement are true about your comment. So it's bizarre. It's like he answered someone else's comment somewhere. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes there is! It's right under my comment which is like what we are currently doing. It may not name me but to be under a comment made by myself and no one else shows that it is directed at myself. If admins here think statments such as the one Gene made are fine then WP is going down the wrong path. Bidgee (talk) 06:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All I'm saying is that there's nothing in his comment that makes any sense in reference to your comment. In fact, his comment is one of the stupider ones I've seen here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes there is! It's right under my comment which is like what we are currently doing. It may not name me but to be under a comment made by myself and no one else shows that it is directed at myself. If admins here think statments such as the one Gene made are fine then WP is going down the wrong path. Bidgee (talk) 06:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a fair statement. My point is that there is nothing he's saying that seems to refer to anything in your comment. None of the claims he makes in that statement are true about your comment. So it's bizarre. It's like he answered someone else's comment somewhere. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are incapable of conducting rational discourse in comprehensible English, you have no place contributing to WP. is rather insulting comment to make since if he looked at what I've contributed he would find that I have a place here to contribute on WP but the comment he made should be withdrawn otherwise If he can't contribute with other editors which I can then maybe he needs to take a good look at himself and they way he behaves with other editors who may not have the same view as him. Bidgee (talk) 06:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm convinced he wasn't talking to you, since his statement has no apparent connection to what you said. But whatever he claims is the "stupidest" comment he's seen in 5 years, he must not get out much. I see 100-times "stupider" comments every day, and that's not even counting the ones I make! :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rather then trying to undermine other editors try and find sources in which state fact. I've also raised the statment you just made on AN/I. Bidgee (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the stupidest comment I've seen in over 5 years as a WP contributor. If you are incapable of conducting rational discourse in comprehensible English, you have no place contributing to WP. --Gene_poole (talk) 05:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The stated regions are in general use by the news media. The article may still need some tidying up and improving. --Lester 01:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment News media just uses them since some Government agencies use them however I've found nothing on Georaphical Names Board of NSW. Bidgee (talk) 05:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You do realise you just invalidated your own nomination, don't you? If government agencies use them, then they are certainly not "unsourced". --Gene_poole (talk) 05:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rubbish. I've not invalidated the nomination. Yes some government agencies use the terms but not publicly nor do they use the areas in the so called blue ribbon suburbs. As I've said nothing has been found on Georaphical Names Board of NSW. Bidgee (talk) 05:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Earth to planet Bidgee! If you're aware that government agencies are using it then it cannot, by definition be "unsourced" because you yourself are stating that a source exists. --Gene_poole (talk) 06:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe instead of continuing to hurl insults, you could spend some time actually finding a reliable source? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I can't ADD any links since it's not available online and a document thats not really in the public therefore it's UNSOURCED. Please take your insult elsewhere. Bidgee (talk) 06:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be happy to show you how to use the Internet if you think that might help. I just did a 3 second Google search and came up with a few hundred public links, many to government sites, all publicly accessible, which you might want to cast your eyes over. --Gene_poole (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I shouldn't have to bother wasting my time searching online when I have other articles to deal with. Bidgee (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you wish to continue to be a contributor to WP I'm afraid you will have to drastically modify your attitude. Contemptible nonsense of that sort has no place in this community. --Gene_poole (talk) 07:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I shouldn't have to bother wasting my time searching online when I have other articles to deal with. Bidgee (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be happy to show you how to use the Internet if you think that might help. I just did a 3 second Google search and came up with a few hundred public links, many to government sites, all publicly accessible, which you might want to cast your eyes over. --Gene_poole (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Earth to planet Bidgee! If you're aware that government agencies are using it then it cannot, by definition be "unsourced" because you yourself are stating that a source exists. --Gene_poole (talk) 06:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rubbish. I've not invalidated the nomination. Yes some government agencies use the terms but not publicly nor do they use the areas in the so called blue ribbon suburbs. As I've said nothing has been found on Georaphical Names Board of NSW. Bidgee (talk) 05:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You do realise you just invalidated your own nomination, don't you? If government agencies use them, then they are certainly not "unsourced". --Gene_poole (talk) 05:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unreferenced, "blue ribbon suburbs" appears to be WP:OR. WWGB (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:OR. Moondyne 09:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - and please note that there may be a difference between 'OR' and 'unsourced' - this Sydneysider (although not born and bred :-) ) can attest that these are accurate, and that this is actually useful information - I believe it's suitable for inclusion here, and will try and find some sources now.... Privatemusings (talk) 05:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- that's my patented five minute cleanup done! - it could do with more work and expansion, but I think it's got a place here... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I still have numerous issues with this article:
- I have not heard of the City of Botany Bay described as Eastern Suburbs elsewhere
- Why no mention of Northern Suburbs, South-eastern Sydney, Macarthur etc as listed on Template:Sydney regions? Very inconsistent ...
- The listing of "3 Suburbs" seems random and unencyclopedic. WWGB (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Lets do a Google search of The Sydney Morning Herald to see how the newspaper uses these terms: Eastern Suburbs, Northern Beaches, Lower North Shore, Upper North Shore, Inner West. Is that proof enough for everyone? --Lester 00:54, 23 July 2008 (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.