Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huntington Park, New Zealand

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. There is a disagreement over policy here but a rough consensus to Keep this article. As an aside, I found it odd that the nominator was asking for a Merge but not specifying a target article to merge to. I'm not sure if that would have changed the outcome in this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huntington Park, New Zealand[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPLACE, it is not a suburb and is it not recognised by Auckland Council nor the NZGB. NPLACE explicitly excludes census tracts. Below is a more detailed comment. I am proposing a merge as an alternative to deletion.

Extended content

Huntington Park is a housing development from the 90s, it is not an official suburb, and is not a notable housing development either. Most of this article relies on original research and unreliable sourcing: Oneroof is a real estate website and not a reliable source. The 1998 map does not even show Huntington Park and is original research. The article on the The Hub shopping centre does not mention Huntington Park. The Countdown reference refers to it as being Woolsworth Botany Downs, again no mention of Huntington Park. Guy's Homestead is notable but only one reference involving it even mentions Huntington Park. Most mention it as being within either Botany or East Tamaki.

Traumnovelle (talk) 01:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clover Park, New Zealand - you continuously have articles such as [1] [2] [3] [4] which describe things as being within Huntington Park, and we would be deleting a well-developed article on some sort of technicality because it doesn't exist within a GIS system. SportingFlyer T·C 17:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One sentence mentions aren't able to establish notability. Please make an argument based on an actual notability guideline and not 'I like it'. The article can be redirected to an actual suburb as an alternative to deletion to maintain the content that exists. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear it's one of the suburbs of Auckland per NPLACE which is one of our lowest notability standards, listed on government websites such as [5]. SportingFlyer T·C 22:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in that says 'suburb', you're using original research to deduce it's a suburb. And official recognition is not 'mentioned on a government website', otherwise roads would also be fair game. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's called a suburb by the media and by the government. Calling that original research is rather disingenuous. SportingFlyer T·C 21:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the government refer to it as a suburb? Traumnovelle (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Auckland. The sources currently cited on the article itself do not show WP:SIGCOV about the place, instead they are isolated events that occurred there such as the fire at the Guy’s homestead or superficial mentions. Prof.PMarini (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Official census district, which alone would be enough for a keep. In any case, populated placed that can be shown to exist are almost never deletion candidates. To quote WP:POPULATED, Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Grutness...wha? 02:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the same notability guideline: 'Census tracts ... are not presumed to be notable'

The relevant paragraph given this is a housing development and not an actual suburb. (It's not even a fifth of a square mile...)

'Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it.'

And also: 'Even the smallest geographical features usually may be found in numerous reliable sources: you can easily see creeks in maps, sand banks in navigation guides, hamlets in census tables, etc. There may be hundreds of them. They do provide reliable information about the subject. However this guideline specifically excludes them from consideration when establishing notability, because these aggregate sources tell us nothing about why a particular object is distinguished. Still, they do contribute to the satisfaction of the requirement of verifiability.' Traumnovelle (talk) 08:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a census tract, though - places like USA and India have quite small and random census tracts, this appears to be more of a census-designated place. Also please mind WP:BLUDGEON. SportingFlyer T·C 09:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It only exists for the purpose of the census and is not used outside of the census. That sounds like a census tract to me. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's absolutely used outside the census, which has already been demonstrated in this AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 09:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That census tract is not used outside of the census. You're conflating the area/housing development with the census tract. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've completely lost me. SportingFlyer T·C 21:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an area, I don't dispute it is a real verifiable area. It is a housing development subdivided since 1994 or earlier. Census tracts are not legal areas and only exist for the purpose of the census. They are not used outside of the census in any measure. Census boundaries do not necessarily correspond with legal boundaries or social boundaries (what people understand as an area) as shown by how they constantly change throughout the different censuses.

For example the census tract 'Auckland University' does not correspond with the actual boundaries of the university and includes the Central City Library and parts of lower Rutland St. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I've noted before, there's a major difference between a census tract in the American or Indian definition - both of those are continuously deleted as they are not used outside the census - and a place which is consistently called a suburb by the government, the local papers, the post office, which is also a defined area in the census, as has been clearly demonstrated here. SportingFlyer T·C 21:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the government sources actually state it's a suburb. Hobsonville Point has more government/media mentions but it is ultimately a housing development not a suburb. Simeon Brown's statement even suggests it isn't one based on his wording choices. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's clearly listed as a suburb in that link and was clearly brought up in parliament below. Housing developments can become suburbs. I don't think you're correct in the slightest and we're not going to agree on this, so taking this off my watchlist. SportingFlyer T·C 09:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grutness. Like most cities in New Zealand, Auckland doesn't have official suburbs. Traumnovelle has mentioned at Talk:Manukau#Merge proposal that suburbs not named on Auckland Council Geomaps are not official suburbs, but I am not aware of any statement from the council saying this, and if such a statement does exist, we can change the article to say "locality". Households in the area have addresses in "Huntington Park". Google maps and Apple maps include "Huntington Park", and so does my GPS.
In the "Extended content" section above, Traumnovelle calls Huntington Park a "housing development", but I think that term in New Zealand applies to mass builds of dwellings which have more than one household in each multi-story building, or where dwellings share walls with at least one other. This applies to the area around Haven Park, but that's only about a quarter of the area of Huntington Park. Traumnovelle also says the 1998 map does not show Huntington Park - that's because it's establishing that the suburb did not exist at that date. Before nominating this article for deletion, Traumnovelle made it a redirect to Botany, New Zealand without any prior merge proposal. The AfD was a response to my suggestion that they request a merge instead. A merge may make sense, although merging to Botany wouldn't be my choice, but to delete a populated area does not make sense, nor does redirecting to the city of almost 1.5 million people.-Gadfium (talk) 04:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pursuing a decision to merge/redirect not a deletion, I forgot to mention that in the AfD heading, apologies.

Post codes are not indicative of boundaries in New Zealand, my postal address is not the same as the locality I live in. On Auckland Council's geomaps they state about post codes: 'Note that New Zealand Post does not define suburb names or boundaries. In rural delivery areas New Zealand Post defines the Mailtown that is required for Rural (RD) addresses. The Mailtown does not necessarily reflect the service town closest to the mailing address.'

>but I think that term in New Zealand applies to mass builds of dwellings which have more than one household in each multi-story building

A housing development is just a housing development, it's where land is sold off and subdivided into housing. The type of housing is irrelevant.

>Traumnovelle also says the 1998 map does not show Huntington Park - that's because it's establishing that the suburb did not exist at that date.

So when did it exist as a suburb? The land was subdivided for housing since at least 1994 based on a comment I found in a Howick & Botany Times article. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, local businesses regard it as a suburb, as do the national news media, and as do Members of Parliament in debate in the house. That counts for something, I'd say. Oh, and by the way, if you're going by the !rule that "suburbs not named on Auckland Council Geomaps are not official suburbs", what happens when said suburbs are used in the Auckland Council's map index (check, for instance, Cottesmore Place, Lushington Place, Halstead Place, Morestead Avenue...)? Grutness...wha? 11:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And this local business calls it Botany: https://piccolopark.co.nz/botany/#

1news article states: 'The development is currently under construction in Huntington Park, Botany' Botany is already a suburb, the fact they put Botany after it implies Huntington Park is something below a suburb.

Here's a bunch of articles discussing something that is within the area but do not use 'Huntington Park' to describe the area: [6] [7] [8]

Simeon Brown's comment doesn't call it a suburb, in fact the grammar even suggests he is referring to it as a housing development (typically we say things are located within a suburb, whilst things may occur 'at' other areas, e.g. I met him at Mount Eden versus I met her in Mount Eden)

None of those maps appear to even mention Huntington Park, they say Howick, East Tamaki, or Botany: http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/council/documents/districtplanmanukau/maps/map37.pdf

If it is forgotten about this routinely and nothing beyond mere statistics appear to exist it probably is not very notable is it? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2024 (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.