Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Street Wharf

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled King street wharf.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to keep the article as no consensus was reached. The article was moved to the proper capitalization of King Street Wharf.

Looks like a commercial, all praise and external links. Magnus Manske 11:13, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Needs fixing, not deleting, Perhaps shifting to King Street Wharf, Sydney? - David Gerard 13:13, May 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Why was this listed here? If you're going to add things to VfD, please add the VfD header on the article page, tell us why you're putting it here, and sign it. I added the header. I vote keep, though it should be at King Street Wharf. RickK 20:50, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually Magnus did give a reason, but the person (User:220.244.196.122) who originally created the article blanked it off this page. I have restored it. --Stormie 03:18, May 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, I agree with David, should be fixed, not deleted. Oh, and the capitalisation of the name should be fixed. --Stormie 03:18, May 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I live in Sydney, and this is the first I've heard of this. So far as I can see it is a high-priced but otherwise unremarkable commercial development, one of hundreds of this scale in Sydney alone. The (minimal) website just says there are 84 "commercial suites". I downloaded the brochure (PDF, 1.06 megabytes) from the website, and it tells me a little more. There is a map on the last of the four graphics-intensive pages that tells me that the site is about 350 by 120 metres in size. There are two photos, a panorama that goes from page two to page three and an aerial shot on page four, that seem to show three squat buildings, about five stories each I think. This tallies well with the figure of 84 suites. I think that's all this is. Should I add these details to the article, do you think? Andrewa 04:44, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Widely known urban renewal project and subject of much public debate. Andrewa obviously doesn't get out much.--Gene_poole 05:31, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP This is a relevant piece of information. The original website is showing a new landmark development in Sydney by the foreshores of Darling harbour. How this article could be deleted is beyond me. I thought this Wikipedia was about including relevant facts and info. Well I'm sorry but a friend of mine has been to King Street Wharf and said it was a new Precint in Sydney australia. Boasting clubs, pubs , fine dining , commercial waterfront suites, Retail and residential units all overlooking the water in Sydney. At the moment it is meant to be the latest place to be. The original website illustrates this. I too downloaded the brochure and their is an aerial photo of the above new precinct. However there seems to be further development left. i agree with Gene_Pool. Regards Adam
  • Delete: advert for an unremarkable commercial development. Google (std disclaimer) turns up only advertising and puff pieces -- if there were some controversy I'd expect news items about politicians posturing, Usenet blathering, that kind of stuff. I had to laugh when I read Adam's comment -- "Boasting clubs, pubs , fine dining , commercial waterfront suites..." -- sounds almost like something from Monty Python. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:41, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just to put its size into perspective, the site is about 42,000 square metres in area. By way of comparison, the WTC site is about 64,750 square metres. But this development is only about five stories tall. To put the debate into perspective, Sydney has several newspapers and TV news services online, and also the NSW parliamentary hansard. If you search for the controversy over the Luna Park or East Circular Quay developments, there is lots on the Web. So wherever this wide public debate occurred, it wasn't in the news or in parliament (;-> which is probably why I missed it. Andrewa 01:28, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
You live in Sydney and you're not aware of the ongoing debate over harbour foreshore redevelopment (of which this is a prime example)? That must be a very different Sydney from the one located in Australia! Perhaps you just don't pay attention to current affairs. --Gene_poole 07:01, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
There's no need to attack me personally (again). Just provide some evidence. I'm well aware of the debate over foreshore redevelopment. What is it that makes this a particularly good example of... of what? The debate? Redevelopment? The latest place to be? Excellence in dining? My suggestion is you don't answer here, put the information into the article instead and just note here that you've done it. And if it's good evidence I'll change my vote. Andrewa 15:11, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
This is getting off topic, but it should be pointed out that nobody is attacking you personally. You originally stated that despite living in Sydney you'd never heard of King Street Wharf. My comments were simply intendeed to point out that one cannot always assume comprehensive knowledge of every occurrence or event of note in a particular place just because one happens to live within a 3 hour drive of the location in question.--Gene_poole 07:54, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for updating the article. See the talk page for my comments on the accuracy of what you have written. But this is progress. Just BTW, no part of Sydney is as much as three hours' drive away from this site, I think you could drive there from Newcastle in under three hours in fact. I'm less than thirty minutes away by car myself, depending on the time of day of course. Andrewa 11:00, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
  • No vote (change of vote). I've updated the article to include information given to me by the centre office when I rang them. It still seems to me that including this is rampant inclusionism. But it's no big deal to me so long as it is accurate, and the online brochure is useless as we have demonstrated. If we do keep it, I'll take some photos next time I'm in the city. Andrewa 01:14, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless someone can add details about why this redevelopment project is more notable than the millions of others around the world. If it's kept, why not a number of articles based on the search vancouver expo redevelopment, an article for Rivermark (earlier pages have annoying music that can't be turned off), Westlake Center[1] (redeveloped a few years ago--twice as many hits as KSW) and countless others. Searching for just "san jose" redevelopment gets over 100,000 hits--do we really need an article for every redevelopment project in the world? If kept, needs to be moved to caps version of title. Niteowlneils 16:56, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, I agree with Niteowlneils. Gugganij 21:24, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/King_Street_Wharf&oldid=1174337955"