Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashfield North, 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 01:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Ashfield North, New South Wales
Was listed for speedy deletion, but is not a speedy candidate. No vote from me. Angr/undefined 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. Besides we have Ashfield Municipality. Delete. Pilatus 12:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't require a separate entry. This delete votes counts for the other suburbs nominated below as well. / Peter Isotalo 13:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per CLW. Kappa 14:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep provided such a municipality exists. &mdash; J I P | Talk 16:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expandas Part of Wikiproject Sydney. Real suburb. If it were to be merged, it should be part of Ashfield, New South Wales not Sydney. Delete further to Nickj's pertinent points for the deletion of this article, there is no place listed in the Suburbs and Localities section of the Gregory's Street Directory. Capitalistroadster 00:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)Capitalistroadster 18:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep all real communities. CalJW 19:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC) - but it now looks like it doesn't so delete. Same applies to the others below. CalJW 00:40, 12 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 North" or "North 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 North" or "North 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 North".
 * 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 North" or "North 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 North" or "North 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)
 * Comment Hey, just asking, don't bite my head off... so, what about
 * an Ashfield North postmark mentioned on a philately site...
 * some election results from "Ashfield North"
 * an election story about Stephanie Kokkolis receiving 33% of the vote in "Ashfield North"
 * an online Ashfield Community guide which says, very bottom of the page, that "The Area of Ashfield is located in Greater Sydney, New South Wales, Australia and includes the local suburbs of Ashfield, Ashfield North, Ashfield South, Dobroyd Point, Haberfield, Summer Hill, & surrounding areas."
 * Howzabout we rewrite the article to NPOV, so it would read: "Ashfield North is an alleged suburb in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Those who believe in its existence frequently suggest that it is part of the Municipality of Ashfield. Critics, however, deny the existence of such a suburb, pointing to the absence of any mention of it by the Geographical Names Board of New South Wales. Conspiracy theorists suggest that the existence of the suburb has been suppressed to conceal evidence of UFO activity in the area."
 * Dpbsmith (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment on the comment:
 * That's a stamp or envelope from 1957, which is 48 years ago. For all I know there may have been a place called that then, but there sure isn't now.
 * It clearly says "POLLING PLACE" on that page. Other polling places in the same electoral division of Low include "INFANTS HOME". Are seriously suggesting that "INFANTS HOME" qualifies as a suburb?
 * Same as above, it's the name of a voting station. The paragraph above refers to "Stanmore Public School" in the same way. Are you proposing that "Stanmore Public School" is a suburb? The paragraph below that refers to "Marrickville Town Hall" in the same way. Are you seriously proposing that "Marrickville Town Hall" qualifies as a suburb?
 * They're spammers! They're trying to make a link farm to push up their google rankings, so you already know they can't be trusted. In fact, if you go to http://www.sydney.communityguide.com.au/ you'll see that they also consider "Hmas Kuttabul" to be a suburb of Sydney! Are seriously proposing that "Hmas Kuttabul" qualifies as a suburb?
 * Please, enough with the silly arguments. Google is not a substitute for using your brain. It's not a suburb, OK? I should know, because I've spent much of the past week cleaning up the list of Sydney suburbs, plus I live right next to it. Moreover, there is a government body that exists to define what is and is not a suburb. They say no. You can't just randomly make up new ones up whenever you feel like it! Jeez, I'm dealing with morons! I really cannot believe I'm seriously wasting my time having this discussion - for me, it defines everything that is wrong with the Wikipedia, in which people with knowledge backed up with references aren't given more credence than people who don't know what they're talking about, and in which getting the most useless crap deleted becomes an extended political process! -- All the best, Nickj (t) 02:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC) P.s. sorry for the rant - but it was that, or kick the cat.


 * Delete as per Nickj.--nixie 02:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for not biting my head off. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC) P. S. I was trying to determine whether this was a case where there are neighborhoods that have informal names that are not officially recognized, together with strongly-held but varying local opinions on the validity of said names. It is sometimes hard to distinguish between the rightous indignation of someone truly well informed, and the simulated authority of a POV-pusher. Sometimes the name of a post office or a polling place is an administrative convenience that is all but ignored by locals, and sometimes it is the neighborhood's "real" name. People who live in Boston never say "I live in Boston." They say "I live in Jamaica Plain" or "I live in West Roxbury" or "I live in Roslindale." Not a parallel case, because these are not just post office names; the neighborhoods&mdash;which are officially called neighborhoods&mdash;do have official existence. Anyway, there's a reason I made a comment rather than a vote... Dpbsmith (talk) 12:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I apologize, I overreacted in my response. You are fully entitled to play devil's advocate and ensure that there is merit to the proposed deletion. I was frustrated with the Wikipedia's process (in particular the asymmetrical nature of how quick and easy it is to unilaterally get content added, but how hard and slow it is to get multilateral consent to get bad content deleted), but that does not just justify my response, and I apologize. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 00:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Onya! No worries, mate. Throw a prawn on the billabong, and get a nice Foster's out of the coolibah. G'day! Dpbsmith (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. If this existed it would be a strong keep, but it seems that it doesn't, so it goes.  Same for the other suburbs below. --Apyule 04:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Change vote to delete as per Nickj CLW 05:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and thanks to Nickj for doing the legwork on this. --DavidConrad 06:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per NickJ. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:02, 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 11:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Nickj. It is not listed by Australia Post, either. --Scott Davis Talk 12:58, 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.