Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South-eastern Sydney

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. The two main arguments here are "arbitrary und unnecessary listing of suburbs" and "term used by reliable sources". There is no consensus, even with the clear number of !votes, which argument is to be considered more important; it is a term used by at least two sources cited in this discussion, but it lacks clear distinction from other articles. I closed it as no consensus for now, but merge/redirect to existing articles might be a good idea. So Why 22:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South-eastern Sydney

Unsourced, and for me, a supposed local of this area, completely unknown. The area this article claims for SE Sydney is an area that is and has always been the core of the Eastern Suburbs, as that article is quick to state. I have serious doubts about this region's existence, and if it indeed is esoterically used somewhere, its notability and our ability to maintain it. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 07:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It lacks content now, and I don't see how it could be expanded without duplicating information from the articles it lists as being part of the locale. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well the Eastern Suburbs (Sydney) article includes a South-eastern Sydney on its map. So I'm wondering, what's up with that? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That map is a template, which incidentally is also nominated for deletion here. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 23:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to be a arbitrary listing of suburbs south and east of the Sydney CBD. The fact that the article does not give a definitive list of what suburbs are in this region, or sources showing who defines the region and how it is used, should be a red flag. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as unnecessary duplication of material in existing articles.Also seems arbitrary per Lankiveil.--Sting Buzz Me... 00:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep South-eastern Sydney is a legitimate region in Sydney. It differs from the Eastern Suburbs of Sydney and has a right to be included as aseparate article. Regions of Sydney are not clearly defined and sometimes are not officially recorded in government documentation but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Further references might be required in the article but I reject the claims that the region does not exist. J Bar (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find some references, that'd be great. As it is, I seriously doubt the firm foundation behind any claims that this region is legitimate. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There's no question the term is in use, and has been used by the health department for quite some time, but I'd like to see if we can get a couple of good refs in there (Happy to change to keep if we can get something relatively authoritative). GNB doesn't define regions, and ABS counts it as Sydney Eastern Suburbs Statistical Subdivision. -- Mark Chovain 20:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. South-eastern Sydney is a convenient grouping of geographically-related suburbs. The label is used by various organisations and departments, such as Medicine, News, Transport. I believe this use in WP:RS is sufficient to establish notability. WWGB (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my view there's a difference between "South Eastern Sydney" and "South-eastern Sydney". Even if they used 'South-eastern', these would be hardly definitive sources. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 07:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only difference I perceive in your argument is a capital E. These are reliable sources that demonstrate common usage of the term. WWGB (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems a useful distinction that has evidence of notability. No good alternative has been suggested. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not our job to decide which definitions are "useful" or not, or if they are not useful what ought to replace them. Wikipedia documents usage, we do not proscribe it. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 07:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a useful distinction - "south eastern Sydney" to me would indicate Rockdale and the Shire, not the region indicated here. Appears arbitrary, per Lankiveil. Orderinchaos 02:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rockdale is south west of Sydney. WWGB (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sydney is southwards along the east coast. Just shows the lack of universal definitions for Sydney's suburbs, which renders the template untenable. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 07:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't follow your argument. Sydney is southwards? Of what? And who is talking about a template? We are discussing an article. WWGB (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The map here in the article is also up for deletion. Although if South-eastern Sydney is determined to be a useful and encyclopedic designation (and article title) I think the template (map) would make sense to keep. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.