Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Callan Park Lunatic Asylum for the Mentally and Criminally Insane


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 20:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Callan Park Lunatic Asylum for the Mentally and Criminally Insane
Information relating to this facility is contained in the article Callan Park, New South Wales. The Kirkbride Complex closed in 1994. amitch 06:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. It appears to be out of date and unneccesary as the nom indicates. --Bduke 08:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Longhair\talk 08:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect -- to Callan Park, New South Wales, a. - Longhair\talk 08:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP. The article Callan Park, New South Wales relates only to the Callan Park precinct, whereas this article contains information on the asylum itself. The asylum is the most significant feature of the area, and its importance should not be marginalised. The article must remain. Socratis57 of Balmain.
 * Nom withdrawn Something happened to this discussion. It once was much longer.  Not sure what.  I was the original nominator; I tripped over it while doing some catagorization work.  The article has been substancially fixed, and I now think it should be kept.  It DOES need some references to make it better, but it seems to assert its own notability now.  I have no idea what happened to the original debate.  --Jayron32 21:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article still asserts that it is a mental hospital and that its future is unsure, yet Callan Park, New South Wales asserts it closed in 1994. Are you sure this is not a copyvio from some old source. I still think it should be deleted, or rather redirected to Callan Park, New South Wales. --Bduke 23:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I doubt a currently operating psychiatric hospital would still be called an "Asylum for the Criminally and Mentally Insane", so I think a title change to the facility's most recent name is in order (Callan Park Mental Hospital, I believe). Yes, the article seems to imply that it's still operating, and according to NSW State Records, Callan Park ceased operating in 1976 when it merged with Rozelle Hospital. Friends of Callan Park says that there were still patients in the facility until 1994 when they were moved to other buildings and it was taken over by Sydney College for the Arts. --Canley 01:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge - to Callan Park as per other views. There's no need for two articles on the same thing. Weak keep - the information covered has now changed so there's less overlap, but I'm still sceptical over whether we need two separate articles. This article could well be merged to provide a good article of FA status in the future about the suburb itself and its history, both as a mental hospital and about the redevelopment plans. JROBBO 04:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have thoroughly updated and modernised the article. Again, I draw your attention to the obvious fact that this article deals with the Asylum itself in great detail, whereas the other article merely contains general information on the site that is Callan Park. The Asylum is an important part of the history of the state of New South Wales and of the treatment and care of the insane, and therefore this article is important. I suggest that the other article Callan Park, New South Wales be deleted or linked to this article and re-named Callan Park Grounds, New South Wales. I hope that the gangs of ne'er-do-wells that lurk the pages of this online information source will accept this. User:socratis57 19 October 2006.
 * The proposal for renaming the other article would be inconsistent with suburb naming conventions on WP. I have to disagree with that. JROBBO 04:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree the subject is historically notable enough for an article, and I've dug up some references which I will add shortly. User:socratis57, thanks for your work on the article, but please don't insult other users as "gangs of ne'er do wells" - it's not civil and doesn't help your case. Actually, can someone close this AfD and tag it for cleanup? Jayron32 has withdrawn the nomination (see above). --Canley 04:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Don't know what happened to the original nom, but I re-nominated it this time round. Even though some additional information has been added to the article, there are parts of the History: Bedlam in Balmain section which are basically copyvios from here or here and will need to be removed or quickly rewritten. The other additions are un-referenced. amitch 08:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply Indeed, I could have been mistaken on that point. Still, the discussion appears truncated.  I was watching this specific Afd.  I have hundreds of things on my watch list, and I only watch AfDs I am involved in.  I must have mad prior comments to this AfD if I was watching it.  My comments are no longer here.  I cannot find them in the history.  I remember distinctly catagorizing this article, and thought I had nominated. Wait, I PRODed it, not AFD.  Now I understand.  OK.  I guess I wasn't the original source of the AfD.  Still, my PROD means I must have at one time thought it was deleteable.  I no longer think so.  The building described seems notable on face value.  The article still needs clean-up but no longer seems to lack notability.  --Jayron32 16:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep see above for explanation --Jayron32 16:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note I have moved the Keep and associated comments from User:socratis57 which were wrongly appearing at the top of this page to its correct chronological place in line and changed their second entry to Comment so as to ensure only one vote.  amitch 08:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Historically very notable, could make for a really interesting article. Rebecca 02:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rebecca and others. Natgoo 09:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rebecca et al. Cnwb 01:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, historically notable, per Rebecca and others. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:37, 23 October 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.