Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of streets in Crawley and Nedlands


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  19:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

List of streets in Crawley and Nedlands

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:LISTCRUFT and Wikipedia is not a directory. Unsourced OR fails GNG and LISTN  ,/INDISCRIMINATE Quek157 (talk) 09:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 09:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 09:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 09:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Speedy procedural close as Keep (at least for now). This is obviously a work in progress.  Only AfDed less than 2 hours after it was created.  Sure it should have been sandboxed or Drafted first but that is not grounds for deletion.  If it ends up looking anything like List of north–south roads in Toronto, or List of streets in Copenhagen, or List of streets in East Perth (same initial author but has taken on a multi-editor life) then it will be referenced, informative, notable, and definitely encyclopedic (and not LISTCRUFT).  Aoziwe (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * In response to below. There are multiple hits in TROVE describing many streets in Perth, their naming and significance.  I found these without trying hard.  So yes, I respectfully suggest that there is sufficient WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG for this article, potentially even in some cases the individual streets in their own right.  This AfD NOM possibly demonstrates a lack of WP:BEFORE.  Aoziwe (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * strong opposeI don't see why I need to give that kind of allowance, here is not afc, draft space or what, if you are in mainspace we had to apply mainspace rules. I am saying I want an opinion on whether it is notable or not, no use userify or draftify when it isn't notable. your argument is essentially why other stuff exists. just as how recently we had a list of non American place that have an american place named after it and now the Canadian version is up and debated extensively. no way procedural close and 2 hours, actually it's 20 mins allowance, is only for A7. my first article was taken to A7 in just 3 minutes FYI. This is AFD and author have 7 days min, up to 28 if 4 relists to polish up article. Quek157 (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I am saddened to read about your first article. A similar thing happened to me but it survived.  "..why I need to give that kind of allowance..", because unless the article is blatant POV or copyright or PROMO or bad BLP, etc., then it would be good to not treat other editors the same way as how you believe you were treated.  Regards.  Aoziwe (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * this is Afd not csd, the author is not that new and will be given time to improve, in order not to bite I didn't use csd can we have policy based discussion please?Quek157 (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * streets are but is the concept of a list notable? I didn't do before, see my Afd record pleaseQuek157 (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC) (moved some comments to the correct place for discussion to flow, see diffs for details --Quek157 (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC))


 * Delete Despite this being a work in progress it has all the early indications of being an directory. Ajf773 (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT, and this editors other two creations (on streets in suburbs of Perth, Australia) should likely be deleted as well. Wikipedia is a gazetteer, but not to the point of including street directories. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep but perhaps put this into a sandbox or draft page until this is referenced and had a lead added. Based on a comment on my talk page, this work is part of a a collaboration between WMAU (Wikimedia Australia) and the Museum of Perth, with a Wikipedian in residence to appear soon. A gazetteer certainly can include lists of streets, and perhaps the list will be limited to important or verifiable streets. A standalone page would be more appropriate than merging into an article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I would fully support sending to draft or sandbox. Aoziwe (talk) 10:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind relisting this 4 times to get the article up to shape or closing this as a no consensus default to keep but now we can't do anything already. However, given that draftspace is too much backlog + this user since they can straight bring this to mainspace and if the consensus was that it isn't notable / not directory, we cannot allow it back to AFC where I am afraid that they will just resubmit and clog the log. I will suggest delete with userification (to userspace but after a delete close - then we can G4 if such substandard article came up again) as the best solution. Main framework can be preserved, will not clog up draft space, will never enter into mainspace in such state, when appropriate (like when wikipedian in residence did this up), then resubmit to mainspace. And now 2 days still there is no work on this article. This is clearly A7 met. I hope you get what I am coming from. Alternate ATD can be redirect to the main city first (with the redirect can be resurrected if needed with just an undo).--Quek157 (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep a close look at the related lists shows that this part of an exercise to collaborate information available from the Museum of Perth, in Perth, Western Australia (note not just 'Australia' there are more than one...) - the major project is to compile lists of streets in various parts of Perth, Western Australia. The creators of these lists are new editors (note, less than 100 edits) and are yet to find the under construction, or hangon variety tags to try keep the afd hungry at bay.  Speculation and the rest is better left alone at this point. JarrahTree 14:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 *  Comment - I know that the creator is unable to defend or even explain the method by which the process of construction of the list entails, and being possibly away from the computer for possibly another 4 days or so, with WP:AGF some of comments above show a lack of understanding of the least that should be expected is for an under construction tag to be respected and understood.JarrahTree 14:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To make it crystal clear I did not tag for AFD with the underconstruction tag, it was added after this AFD started, page history don't lie. 1st edit and the page is started and after 1.5 hours I tagged for AFD, what tag is there??? --Quek157 (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: as I said, no objection for 4 relists, you just don't mainspace if unnecessary. the other lists is a little why other stuff exists. my atd offer is most reasonable. speculation goes nowhere, good policies go a far place.And to go to a admin talkpage for the keep can be seen as a canvassing, I just didn't want to point out that bit I have. Every new user can go to AFC and I just help a 2017 Jan rejected draft to meet mainspace today after much work, by all means use the article wizard but here is clearly mainspace. This is clearly better to restart. even if the not is clear, are such list notable based on listn . for under construction tag, onus is not on us to put but why can't people understand this is Afd not csd timing is not important. Another point, the arguments are this I like it so keep, what a common argument .please answer the policy arguments here please and what defending, we don't own articles. come on guys, can we be serious or not here . Quek157 (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTDIRECTORY and per WP:LISTN. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 16:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * see WP:CSC  one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, ... this falls within that where encyclopaedic information exists but not sufficient to warrant individual articles, while for many of the streets individual articles already exist Gnangarra 13:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Draftify. I don't see much encyclopedic value in having a list of streets.  But neither do I see much encyclopedic value in having an article for every station on a rail line or every bus route in a city.  And yet, plenty of other people do see such value, especially if (as seems to be the case here) the list will be augmented with historical tidbits.  But the article's creator erred in putting this in Main space before it was ready.  For what it's worth, I feel the same way about the creator's other recent articles (List of streets in Kings Park and West Perth and List of streets in East Perth).  But they're outside the scope of this discussion.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment:For those who wants draftify keep or whatsoever, do see this highly related Afd Articles_for_deletion/List_of_non-Canadian_places_that_have_a_Canadian_place_named_after_them and what are the arguments will count or not. Final take AFD is not war zone. --Quek157 (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep noting I'm the initiator of the initiative to work with the Museum of Perth its a significant outreach project culminating in a major exhibition about Wikipedia coinciding with the 2019 ESEAP conference. These are not mere lists of streets, these are about the origins of the origins of streets, the reasons for the choice of names and how they came about.  For most of the streets there are third party sources to establish stand alone articles that cover this aspect and much more. For a handful there will be very little 3rd party sourcing, assuming that maps even independently created ones along with multiple documents from colonial(1800-1890's), road boards, local government and state government records are considered primary sources. These roads intertwine with the fabric of a the whole of Perth, they recognise notable people, record Indigenous connections, they map the development of communities, suburbs and towns, they record major events, and provide the link between a suburbs origin and its naming source.  Already these link(not yet added, if this AfD calls for it I can throw 65 new editors at it from monday morning expand that group to 300 by the end of the week, conditional on others accepting reposibility to clean any mess made) to 1,000's of articles related to Perth, Western Australia at a level of complexity that makes construction within user space impractical.  In the last week we start with skilling just 5 new editors by the end of the month this project will have expanded to 30+ contributors working 100's of topics from buildings, architects, people, Indigenous knowledge, biota and many more. Western Australia is unique in that the development from the first streets to now is well documented as an encyclopaedic topic its an area we have next to no coverage yet the naming and identification of streets is something that impacts every society across the world it how we each find our way home. Yet its a subset of cartography we take for granted, and its holds amazing amount knowledge of whats important to a community.  As for the nomination I feel for Quek157 in having their first article deleted within minutes of it being created but that should not be the reason for nominating new articles, these lists meet WP:N collectively as a set they are verifiable across multiple reliable sources.  see for Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Western_Australia for an inital outline of the mechanics of the list creation. Gnangarra 02:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Move to project-space — "a significant outreach project ... a level of complexity that makes construction within user space impractical" — Perhaps the solution is to create a project space for these pages, similar to what was done for Toodyaypedia stages 2 and 3. Multiple sub-pages can be created under the project, new editors can work on them without having to worry about article-space standards, experienced editors (aware of the project, its methodology and constraints, its use of new editors, etc) can help out if necessary, then when a page is ready it can be moved to article-space. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * fundamentally different subjects the Toodyaypedia stage 3 were not closely related subjects but individual articles who's inclusion was defined by a non-notable arbitrary process purely for maintenance purposes. Gnangarra 04:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete or userfy. While it's great to see collaboration with the Museum of Perth (who are fantastic!) these lists of suburban streets are completely unencyclopedic and don't belong on Wikipedia. There are so many projects and so many articles in which the museum's expertise would be incredibly valuable - but this is just not a suitable one. All the comments about it being a work in progress fundamentally miss the point: the state of the article is not the problem, the subject is the problem - and it can't be made encyclopedic. Heck, it's better to have this discussion now than after smart newbie editors have wasted days or weeks on it. I really suggest the Perth Wikipedians involved with this one quickly rethink and find a better choice of subject, because otherwise this ill-thought out topic is just going to be an unnecessarily ugly experience for some people it'd be great to have on board. This also applies to all of the other suburban street lists that have been created: please, don't roll out any more. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Road naming in WA is subject to Land Administration Act 1997, Land Information Authority Regulations 2007, Australian Standard AS/NZS 4819:2011 they are also subject various other piece of legislation. Its an important part of Urban planning and a major feature of cartography. Add to that each name is subject to various additional regulations from Emergency service acts and Indigenous culture and heritage acts, each name goes through 7 different consultation processes.  It is a very encyclopaedic topic as explained previously because it reflects many differing aspects of a community as it develops over time, a list article is a way to bring all of these elements into one place. Gnangarra 12:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A decision falling under lots of pieces of legislation is not remotely an argument for it being encyclopedic: by that logic, every suburban house is notable since lots of acts applied to their construction. If all you can find about a street is that it exists or if you're very lucky where its name came from, it just isn't notable and any claims of reflecting "many differing aspects of a community" are just hyperbolic. Perhaps, as I think Mitch suggested on one of the talk pages, one overarching article might be able to fulfill that role in an encyclopedic way, assuming sources for that in fact exist. None of these suburban street lists actually pass notability guidelines beyond demonstrating that these streets exist and have names: the sources to demonstrate notability simply don't exist. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ... as I think Mitch suggested on one of the talk pages ... - here. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep This list falls squarely within Wikipedia's gazetteer function. It needs to be properly referenced, not deleted.  References for most of the streets that would ultimately be named in it are available in an appendix to Williams, AE (1984) Nedlands: From Campsite to City Nedlands: City of Nedlands, which, according to Worldcat, is held by the City of Perth library and State Library of WA.  Someone from the Museum of Perth should borrow the book and use it to reference the list.  Further, some of the streets could be linked to the article about the subjects of the relevant origin of the relevant name, eg Birdwood Parade and Throssell Street. Bahnfrend (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * some of the streets could be linked to the article about the subjects of the relevant origin of the relevant name — I've been doing that, admittedly ad hoc, on this and similar articles. Examples: . I'm sure I or someone else will finish the job at some point. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Since people are still arguing for a keep without any good arguments, I will put forth one more, forget about sourcing, even sourced properly all the roads and information, it will be a SYNTH. Still cannot escape delete. Delete this, userify to an editor with good standing (but there aren't much information) if needed. --Quek157 (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Surely adding a street directory (one that includes suburb boundaries),and/or Landgate Map Viewer, as a reference would negate any claim of SYNTH. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're reliant on a street directory as a source, I would say this mounts an incredibly strong argument for non-notability. There are millions of streets around the world, which is why no one to my knowledge has ever before tried to argue inherent notability for them: why are streets in this handful of suburbs uniquely notable because a couple of editors are personally interested in them? The sourcing certainly isn't any superior to any other average batch of streets in any suburb anywhere else in the world. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I was not suggesting that a street directory was evidence of notability (my post makes no claim as to notability); I was pointing out that a list of streets in a suburb is not synthesis, because there are reliable sources that provide that information without having to "reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Mitch Ames (talk) 03:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not merely a list of street names, it covers when they were built, how they were named, if they have ever had a name change, plus other aspects like change in alignment, closures, creation of pedestrian malls, why behind the names. Its not a synth as each street is within a clearly defined subset related to notable topics each is verifiable through multiple sources together they form level of knowledge that s creates an understanding of the subject as a whole. Gnangarra 04:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * How is when a random suburban street was built and what it was named after notable enough for an article? Average suburban streets rarely (never) change alignment, get turned into pedestrial malls, get closed, or anything other than exist, which is why these suburban articles flounder so much more than the CBD ones. Beyond that, it mightn't be a case of WP:SYNTH, but it's definitely a seething mess of WP:OR: the very first one has five different editorial theories about the naming of a road, the only source-of-sorts being an archival document. Even the reference list that is there is highly questionable: for instance, this 1933 ad to sell a house being used to reference that the street is in its suburb seems just designed to make the list of newspaper sources look longer. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What you're doing is advocating the deletion of an article that hasn't even been created. This is not an article about an individual street.  It's a list of streets in a group of notable suburbs.  In any case, according to Notability (highways), "There is [sic] no absolute rules for notability that are adhered to for Australian roads."  You could liken this list to a list of international centuries scored by a notable cricketer (eg a cricketer who has played in at least one test match).  Lots of such lists have been created in Wikipedia, and some of them are even featured lists (eg List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar).  Why should a list of streets in a notable suburb be treated any differently if the information in the list is derived from reliable sources? Bahnfrend (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The quote you are quoting is from a page tagged with "It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." --Quek157 (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I was advocating the deletion of this article, because a list of non-notable streets in a random suburban area is inherently non-notable. The notability comparison to a list of performances of one of the most famous cricketers in history is so absurd it doesn't bother further response. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a "random suburban area" at all, and you're not following the applicable guidelines in your comments about the list. According to WP:NOTESAL, "...  One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable ..."  See also WP:CSC: "... one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles ..." And the list is not a SYNTH either.  As I have indicated above, the City of Nedlands published a history book as long ago as 1984 in which a whole appendix was devoted to a list of all of the streets in the City of Nedlands and the provision of information about the origins of all of their names (ie encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles).  Supplementary information about those streets is also available from other sources, eg similar lists that have been published elsewhere from time to time.  You might think that such information is not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, but people who live in Perth are likely to disagree, and Perth is a big city, not a village. Bahnfrend (talk) 06:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment - as Quek157 was blocked this am, I believe that the confused and somewhat odd material left here by the blocked user might need to be taken into account of any closing editor/admin.

For procedural and generally accepted practices on wikipedia, I trust other editors are able to take into account the loss of the nominator, and any relevant questions might be best served by closing this AFD and re-listing (if a new nominator so chooses.)

Otherwise the reading of the above discussion needs to be particularly considered and very carefully, so that whatever eventuates may take into account any bias towards the nominators original nomination, and subsequent conversation. Noting the now (almost disappeared) closed ANI report may possibly be interpreted as regarding the blocked users understanding (or lack of it) of procedures relative to AFD and related issues. JarrahTree 06:43, 28 May 2018 (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.