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
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