Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of suburbs in wellington


 * 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 of the debate was keep. howcheng  [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149;  e  ] 18:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

List of suburbs in wellington
Covered by Category:Wellington_urban_districts. Barefootguru 17:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not covered by that category at all: the category covers four cities and only the suburbs that have pages so far. Robin Patterson 06:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * delete per nom └UkPaolo/TALK┐ 17:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep rename to List of suburbs in Wellington and cleanup for now. It would be good if we had any Kiwis especially Wellingtonians to look at this. Capitalistroadster 19:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions.  . Capitalistroadster 20:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, includes suburbs which don't yet have articles. I've wikified the list. I'm somewhat familiar with Wellington; there are suburbs here I've never heard of, but that in itself means little. Rename to proper capitalisation, of course.-gadfium 22:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Now Strong keep, the article has changed significantly and for the better over the last few hours.-gadfium 03:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. A category (which is probably the other option to this page) isn't really satisfactory &mdash; it wouldn't show suburbs without an article (as Gadfium mentions), it wouldn't show which are official designations versus informal names (as this page now does), and it wouldn't show a map (as this now does). Also, the existing category seems to cover places from all over the greater Wellington region, while this page sticks to Wellington proper, so they're not really equivalent. -- Vardion 23:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * keep: Article is a good standard now since recent edits. The rename to capitalized "wellington" is probably a good idea. -- SimonLyall 05:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Moving to the correct capitalisation is definitely called for. Robin Patterson 06:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Moving to the correct capitalisation is definitely called for. Robin Patterson 06:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Strongest Possible Keep: No good reason for deleting it has been given (and a purported reason was based on misinformation); the article has improved recently, but that's no justification for proposing a deletion. Robin Patterson 06:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC) (who has just spent nearly an hour dealing with 95 pages on Wikipedia Maori that were spammed in the space of two minutes)
 * Strong Keep as per Vardion's reasons. Ppe42 12:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC) (a Wellingtonian).
 * keep: You’ve convinced me, the article has merits—particularly after its radical improvement since I posted the deletion notice. Barefootguru 18:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * keep and rename, for reasons already mentioned. --LesleyW 11:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep but definitely needs to be renamed. Stombs 05:11, 18 December 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.