Talk:Kananook, Victoria

Kananook is not a suburb
The result was merge into Seaford, Victoria. -- SEO75  [  talk  ]  20:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Kananook is a locality of Seaford, if that, and not a suburb of Victoria. This is evidenced in that:
 * it is not used at all within the "Suburbs around Suburb" parameters of any suburb infoboxes
 * the council search result at the Local Government Victoria site returns nothing when searching for it
 * nothing really links to this page
 * '''And...
 * Australia Post don't recognise it
 * Melway clearly shows Kananook railway station falling within Seaford 3198, with the suburb boundary of it against Frankston 3199 along Dandenong-Frankston then Overton Roads
 * searching for "Kananook, Victoria" in Google Maps returns "Kananook Ave Seaford VIC 3198, Australia"

My guess is that the name took off once Kananook railway station opened in 1975, probably named after the neighbouring Kananook Reserve park – a rather common practice for opening two train stations within the one suburb. I would suggest that the useful/worthy contents of this page be merged into Seaford, Victoria, and a redirect be placed in this page to it. SEO75  [  talk  ] 21:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep but fix article to link back to Seaford and reflect status as locality. Also, support a section of the seaford article dealing with this locality and linking back here, I believe there is enough content here to justify an article, but there is much repair work to be done to this article. In it's current state, a merge would be diffucult, would involve removal of a lot of content that should be rewritten, and would probably create a situation where this article would be recreated before long anyway. aliasd·U·T 13:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If it was deleted I would still be tempted to create it again if an WP:AFC came in, as it has enough different content from Seaford, and is notable enough in itself. Graeme Bartlett 23:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Because the article is replaced with a redirect, it is not deleted as such. There would be no reason to recreate. Rimmeraj 03:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge. The locality is not notable on its own, and other localities like this one have been merged in a similar fashion. see Paddington, Queensland which contains the locality of Rosalie and Nundah, Queensland which contains the locality of Toombul. why? because the locality and suburb will end up duplicating material for landmarks etc that belong both in the suburb and locality. When does a 'locality' deserve an article. Most suburbs have many localities, over various levels of notability, but they are an aspect of the suburb itself. Rimmeraj 03:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, these localities are incorporated within their respective suburban articles, and they are both very famous and notable localities, but there simply isn't enough content on Nundah or Paddington pages to justify a seperate page. This page is already here, and already has quite a lot of content (more then the Paddington article), and Kananook should be a subheading of the Seaford article, linked back here as the main article for that particular topic. aliasd·U·T 05:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * how much content does not matter. The two articles I picked are not in the best of condition, there are others also. but the main point is that content will be duplicated as the locality and suburb overlap. Rimmeraj 09:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If the suburb article has a subheading related to the locality, and a link to the main article on the locality there is little chane of duplication of content. aliasd·U·T 09:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There is confusion here I think, one discussion is on weather this article needs to be merged, another is on weather this article is a locality and not a suburb. Plenty of localities have articles, hell, buildings/parks/railway stations have articles. The two discussions are not related. aliasd·U·T 09:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I was not commenting on if a locality is a suburb. I am saying that unless it is a suburb, a locality it is not notable enough. buildings/parks/railways are a different altogether, and usually notable on their own right. And if 'plenty of localities' have articles then they should be merged with the notable locality i.e. a suburb. Rimmeraj 04:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep as is, oppose merge. In the argument that this is a locality - well, it's a notable locality according to Wiki guidelines. As for Australia Post and Melway rationale... so what? There is no precedent to suggest that Australia Post post code guidelines establish notability of an area. 203.57.241.67 23:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Encise
 * If we put as much effort into improving the article instead of debating whether or not to keep the article it would be great! Graeme Bartlett 11:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge as per original reasons. --ozzmosis 10:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)