Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Street Kirribilli


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Jeffrey Street Kirribilli

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

nn-place. delete UtherSRG (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The original author has asked me, as the nom, to re-examine the article in light of the flurry of work that has been done on it in the past few days. The original author is also quite taken aback by how much effort other people have been willing to devote to improving this article. This, my friends, is AFD at its finest: a place where a mere stub showing no ounce of notability can be transformed through a collaborative effort. This is how I remember AfD, not as Articles for Deletion, but as Articles for Discussion. Even better would be to call it something else, for more the deletion and discussion goes on here. AfI (improvement)? AfR (review)? Anyway, on to the review...
 * Since there are no specific policies covering streets (although there is one in the works at WP:STREETS), I'm forced to use WP:GNG to review. GNG states If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.
 * Unfortunately the GNG is very tough as a guideline. I don't find a single reference supports passing this via GNG. I'm afraid my delete !vote must stand.
 * Even if STREETS passed as it is now, the article would have to pass GNG first. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Completely rewritten since.AWHS (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Aside from being one block away from the north end of Sydney Harbor Bridge, I don't see how this street is notable. Plus, a mention of an "enclosed map" (in this section) leads me to strongly suspect a copyvio. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 08:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait for a suitable period of time. The article was only created 20 minutes ago, so you haven't left much time for the original author to get it into an acceptable state.  It appears to be an article about a geographic location, which is normally acceptable on Wikipedia without further evidence of notability.  I too noticed the copyvio indication, but lets give the original author enough time to sort it out first. &mdash;gorgan_almighty (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Keep.  The article has improved substantially since its nomination.  There is strong consensus on Wikipedia for allowing articles about places of local interest such as individual streets, providing they clearly assert their notability/importance to the local context, and providing they are well referenced (for verification purposes).  This article fulfils both of those requirements. &mdash;gorgan_almighty (talk) 11:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * AFD gives it one week. That is a suitable period of time. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Amended as suggested but more edits to come. Thank you for your comments. This is a first draft only copied from an article written for another publication by me. Thank you also for providing time to improve this article. Have removed reference to local maps which have not yet been loaded. Unlikely to be copyright violation in any event but will investigate over coming weeks with the NSW Govenment Library on my next visit. Copyright laws in Australia are understood not to apply for material in the public domain (such as a map which is more than 100 years old). The article is about a geographic location which is frequently featured or mentioned in the Australian press (eg leading newspaper today www.smh.com.au) and also appears daily on television. The street also contains a large number of significant heritage items. The immediate area has tourism, travel, education, and some minor geotechnical / engineering interest. This article should therefore be acceptable on Wikipedia without further evidence of notability.AWHS (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This street, which I have been to many times so am well aware of its prominent location, lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. The coverage is key - without it the article consists of fatal original research. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you are just the person to help rescue this article from deletion. A Barnstar award to you if you can. The over-zealous efforts to delete articles makes this a challenge. It was my intention to research this at the State Library of NSW over an extended period of time, this however cannot occur in the next few weeks. There is quite a lot of material available in the historical archives but very little of it has been published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majormax (talk • contribs) 23:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest not letting the deletion of the article get in the way of your research. If the article gets deleted, and you later create a new article with lots of reliable sources, the new article will survive. Really the only way to avoid AfD is to do the research before writing the article.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No copyright violation Confirmed with NSW Government State Records that copyright for maps expires 50 years after date of first publication. AWHS (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This article has now been substantially edited and altered, effectively rewritten to address many of the initial concerns.AWHS (talk) 05:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Probably needs to be renamed - "Jeffrey Street" is unique as yet on WP, and if it needs disambiguation it needs a comma or brackets. PamD (talk) 08:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you do that?AWHS (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done it. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your edits, the article is now much improved.AWHS (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

KEEP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.208.4 (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason why this article should be deleted The article is factual and certainly seems to be accurate. The inclusion of a map that is no longer covered by copyright should not be a reason to remove the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.208.4 (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * KEEP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.208.4 (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * — 121.217.208.4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Guthrieb1960 (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Why does the street need to be notable? Surely more accurate information about any street is of benefit?
 * Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guthrieb1960 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * — Guthrieb1960 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * "Keep" This is a very interesting bit of Aussie history and should stay in Wiki.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mes227 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * — Mes227 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep What a wonderful little piece of history. Should be encouraged. Sandgroper1966 (talk) 06:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * — Sandgroper1966 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete Lacks references about the street needed to establish notability. The sock/meat puppetry above is pretty obvious. Nick-D (talk) 09:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you to everyone who has assisted in the rewrite over the past 48 hours. The article is now only a little over 2 days old and in that time it has been almost completely rewritten with references added throughout.
 * Photograph added - One of the most instantly recognisable views in the world... AWHS (talk) 05:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That photograph warrants an article on Sydney Harbour Bridge, not on Jeffrey Street. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 04:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Rewrite with new emphasis The article, in particular the introduction and first section has been rewritten to include notable mentions in the press and change the emphasis away from the heritage and history to the view/ vantage and tourist destination that the Mayor called "one of the most important locations in Sydney". AWHS (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - notability as a viewpoint seems well established in refs. PamD (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment On the fence for now, but I question how many of the references are actually about Jeffrey Street and include a non-trivial mention of the topic. Also, the history section does not seem to me to actually be about Jeffrey Street but more about Kirribilli, New South Wales. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Response re the history section and the connection with broader Kirribilli. The history of the area of Jeffrey Street versus the rest of Kirribilli is complex. The article endeavours to focus on only those aspects that directly apply to Jeffrey Street or the immediate area generally as shown on the map. This area is perhaps 10% of Kirribilli. The suburb originally formed around Jeffrey Street on which this article focusses, thus some history is common and for a brief period virtually the whole peninsula was part of a single grant. Therefore the history of all sites will have some elements in common, closely related but differentiated pages are as follows:
 * Admiralty House, Sydney covers largely different history
 * Sydney Harbour Bridge immediately to the west
 * Milsons Point a couple of hundred metres away
 * Luna Park also only a short distance away.
 * Kirribilli House differentiated from Admiralty House, Sydney which is adjacent
 * Royal Sydney Yacht Squadron at the NE end of the peninsula
 * The railway station, schools and theatre also have separate pages.
 * A future page might cover the area of Milson Park at the northern end of the suburb. This area also has a rich history and has historical importance from incidents with early contact with aborigines in the area. This could be a stub.AWHS (talk) 08:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'm happy for this article to be kept - notability seems established within the referenced comment in the opening paragraph of There are 19 heritage listed properties in the street, one of the highest concentrations of heritage listed properties in Australia - and then perhaps in the comment within the maps sub-section which notates, the location of graves which are believed to have been dug very close to the line of the modern Jeffrey(s) Street. From this evidence, it is deduced that Jeffrey(s) Street was the site of the first European burials on Sydney's North Shore. Whilst I do not like the word deduced because it seems to refer to some original thinking by the responsible editor - that word can be changed and if the comment is factual it does add historical importance to the location of the street.-- VirtualSteve need admin support? 02:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your detailed comments I have edited the text re the graves to more accurately reflect a Heritage report held by North Sydney Council (I have a soft copy). The report categorically states that the graves are located in Jeffrey Street, but did not state where in the street. I have provided the reference. With the benefit of hindsight, the scaling of the map to determine where in the street was my original work so I have deleted that comment. I am still learning the rules of wikipedia. Any reader could compare this map to a modern day map and draw their own conclusions.AWHS (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per what VirtualSteve has stated above, the article does need to be cleaned up and a rewrite on some of the content in the article. Bidgee (talk) 13:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep With more than 50 sources and several screenfulls of information derived from these sources, this is obviously a notable topic. Dew Kane (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * most of the references are about Kirribilli, New South Wales not Jeffrey St. LibStar (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Refer to comment below about differentiation from neighbouring suburbs. AWHS (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge any useful content to Kirribilli, New South Wales. the article attempts to elevate Jeffrey St when most of the references are about the suburb Kirribilli and not Jeffrey st. LibStar (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I have tried to write the article in such a way that this is not a logical conclusion by avoiding the general history of Kirribilli and limiting the history to the area of the street alone. Excluding maps (which cover the whole area) and walking tour guides (which also cover the whole area) a majority of the references are now very specific to Jeffrey Street. One of the issues with elevating is that the area is not clearly part of Kirribilli. The area was originally called North Sydney, the early map circa 1890 refers. On some maps the area is referred to as Milsons Point (refer to the train station and also the harbour bridge for examples). A quaint tradition St Aloysius College which is located in the street is that they still use the address Milsons Point on the school website even though Jeffrey Street has technically been just inside the suburb boundary for Kirribilli for over 50 years. The area is frequently referred to in the press (eg the fireworks on New Years Eve) simply as Jeffrey Street or Jeffrey Street Wharf. Admittedly the area is also often referred to as either Milsons Point, North Sydney or Kirribilli but the term Jeffrey Street is in very widespread usage. This confusion often arises because in the early 1800's virtually the entire penninsula was part of a single land owning, thus for this brief period of history there is one element of common history with at least 10 other pages on WP. AWHS (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Heritage photographs added of Jeffrey Street, in particular old cottages and the wharf and also the block diagram from the 1890's. I have also been referred to photographs in the State Library of NSW and have added a 1940's photo of the row of terraces. The wharf was notable earlier in the century as the main vehicle ferry wharf prior to the harbour bridge. Thank you everyone for the comments, the article is now vastly improved. AWHS (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Found the online citations for the SMH references. These are available online in the archives of the SMH but are not indexed by search engines.AWHS (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The reference re Milson being a friend of Campbell is WP but also found a number of other sources which I will add. The map shows that Milson's Orchard was in exactly the same area as the modern Jeffrey Street, so this is directly notable for the street rather than the broader suburb. AWHS (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks to whoever added the category Category:Streets in Sydney. It is appropriate in this context and in good company. AWHS (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Lovely article - Even if it is about quite a specific place, it's certainly quite an amazing location, and more importantly its notability is verified by non-trivial mentions in secondary sources. This principle would hold even if it were a less iconic location. If someone is prepared to do the research to create an article about a very specific place, then that should be strongly encouraged - It most certainly IS what Wikipedia is all about. My only concern would echo what other editors have said - duplicated history from the Kirribili page should be avoided. Only include what is a necessary backstory to the specific history. It seems that this has been or is being addressed in the article. If the problem is too much information, rather than not enough, fix it rather than delete the whole article.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2010 (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.