Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beacon Hill, New South Wales, Warringah Road


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was speedy deleted, for having no content. -R. fiend 21:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Beacon Hill, New South Wales, Warringah Road
The submitter of this article is publishing numerous others, each exactly the same format as this. Empty articles on streets in a suburb in New South Wales? How is that notable. I vote delete this and all the others. Gaff talk  02:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC) See also:
 * Beacon Hill, New South Wales, Willandra Road
 * Beacon Hill, New South Wales, Tristram Road
 * Beacon Hill, New South Wales, Ellis Road
 * Beacon Hill, New South Wales, Reynolds Crescent
 * Beacon Hill, New South Wales, Christopher Close
 * Beacon Hill, New South Wales, Brooker Avenue
 * Beacon Hill, New South Wales, Boyer Road
 * Beacon Hill, New South Wales, Spilstead Place
 * Above five added to the list by Neier 03:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * delete all of them per nom. I nominated one of them and he removed the tag and I wasn't in the mood for a fight.Gator1 02:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I left a message on his talk page (hopefully nicely phrased). Here was the reply.

Suburb Streets

Hi,

The main reason for adding street pages to my suburb article is to create community. I am publicly proposing that members of our local community participate in this Wiki project so they can add thier collective knowledge of the history of thier street.

From my experience, every street has it's history, as does every family and I think this project provides the mechanism for them to document that. This ranges from previous property owners to various events. I feel this can be helpful especially in researching family history.

On the other hand, I think your point of view might be that it's important to conserve articles so that they can be managed properly. I agree, conserving space and promoting managability is important, however, the alternative might be to have a whole lot of sub-headings within the main article and make the article very long. This has an effect on the usability of an online document in my opinion.

I welcome your comments and look forward to your reply.

While I admire his efforts towards creating community, I wonder if he will be better of using something like blogger. He could then set up blog accounts for every family in his neighborhood to put up photos and the whole nine yards.--Gaff talk  02:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete no content --Anetode 03:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete the lot of them. Wikipedia isn't a project to document the history of every small neighborhood out there, and while I can appreciate his attempts to build a local community, that isn't Wikipedia's goal either. There are better tools for that out there, anyway. -- Captain Disdain 03:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I left a message to that effect on his user page.--Gaff  talk  03:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - I think that the streets section of Beacon Hill, New South Wales could just be expanded to hold this information. If these somehow survive the afd, the titles need to be re-ordered.  (Street first, then city, etc).  The way it is now is completely unintuitive.  Beacon Hill, New South Wales, Reynolds Crescent;  Beacon Hill, New South Wales, Christopher Close; Beacon Hill, New South Wales, Brooker Avenue; Beacon Hill, New South Wales, Boyer Road; Beacon Hill, New South Wales, Spilstead Place also fit the form (some are already listed for speedy).  Neier 03:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge them all into Beacon Hill, New South Wales  under streets and Delete individual names. While it would be good to have a detailed history, this should be in the main article rather than under each street. Besides, I don't think that many people will look for it under that name. Capitalistroadster 03:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Yes I am voting to delete my own articles. To keep the peace. Apparently this level of detail is not acceptable in Wikipedia, but has left me wondering what level is appropriate. Any help is always welcome.Peter Konnecke


 * Delete or Speedy better as either test page in speedy or roadcruft in regular delete --JAranda &#124; watz sup 05:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge as per Capitalistroadster. Any historic or interesting information about particular roads could help fill out the beacon Hill article (if there is any such info on any of the pages). Grutness...  wha?  08:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Captain Disdain --TimPope 09:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to proper name and merge and redirect any useful info in the article on the town. Mgm|(talk) 12:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Please remember that merging requires the edit history to be retained so merge and delete is not a possible vote per Guide to deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 12:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Why are we even having this conversation? These are such obvious speedy deletes it's painful to sit here and watch people vote. Did anyone who didn't vote delete actuallt read these? There is zero content. Literally. Nothing! I believe I speedied a couple of these before they were nominated, and I'm very tempted to do so again. there is nothing to merge! -R. fiend 17:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This does seem to confirm my suspicion that many editors do not read the articles they vote on. That's a little disturbing. -R. fiend 21:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete agreeing with the above sentiment. Dottore So 21:44, 16 October 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.