Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaoyangmen Outer Street

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The result was Keep/withdrawn. (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chaoyangmen Outer Street

[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)

No significant coverage in reliable sources, I'm fluent in Chinese and there doesn't seem to be anything but passing mentions of this road even in Chinese-language sources from searches on Google books and News. Doesn't seem to have anything worth merging into another article. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've not been able to find any sources that claim anything besides the fact that it exists. Maybe it it had some historic significance, it could be considered notable, but this doesn't meet the notability guidelines and Wikipedia isn't a street directory. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Striking per discussion below. Historical significance grants presumption of notability. I will be performing another deeper BEFORE before making a new !vote — Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Per WP:Roadways and per Alpha3031. Any significant information from this article can be put into bigger articles. In short, Chaoyangmen Outer Street doesn't have the sufficient ,significant history or multiple amount of secondary mentions to properly satisfy WP:Roadways OR WP:GNG JC7V-constructive zone 04:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Keep After reading WP:NEXIST and realizing that this is a historic road, I am changing my vote to keep. JC7V-constructive zone 16:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More about the street can be found after breaking up the name into Chao Yang Men Outer Street or by looking for Chaoyangmen Dajie. Also looking in Chinese (simplified and traditional) helps establishing notability. In summary, this main route in Beijing easily passes WP:N. gidonb (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per gidonb. James500 (talk) 06:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @Gidonb and James500: The number of sources isn't in question, but how many of them go beyond passing mentions like "walking past X road, you will see building Y", "on road X is the headquarter of company Z" and "road X will be closed due to the international distance running festival being held this April 15"? — Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alpha3031: Why would it matter? As long as there are sufficient WP:INDEPTH sources that do establish notability, the total number of other sources - that can still reference information within the article - makes absolutely no difference. In general, when a major arterial in a world city like Beijing is nominated, it points at a serious WP:BEFORE failure. Same applies to the supporting opinions. People couldn't find something since it is spelled in different languages in different ways. This should be closed as a keep regardless of any tallies because nobody here makes the claim that notability of streets needs to be reviewed drastically different than before (and even if one would: WP:WRONGFORUM). gidonb (talk) 12:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only sources in the article are not significant coverage, fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 10:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The two last sources are about places on this road , not the road itself. It could be mentioned on the articles of those places, if they have articles. » Shadowowl | talk 19:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Unsure~~ First, the Chinese article has more information (and pictures) that could be added to this article. However, it still only has one ref, which is to a single page of a book.

However, I'm not sure the rest of the Template:Roads and expressways of Beijing will do any better as far as sourcing. By the User:Grutness/One street per 50,000 people rule of thumb, Beijing's roads would warrant 400 or so articles, yet most of the roads on the template don't even have articles. Do we want to delete the unsourced ones and consolidate? Λυδ α cιτγ 07:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Persuaded by Oakshade's argument to keep for historical significance. Λυδ α cιτγ 11:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The historically (and arguably current) main easterly route into Beijing. Most positively historical paper coverage and reports in the Chinese language going back centuries. Such a major road in a city like London or New York would never be AfD'd. --Oakshade (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with Oakshade. - Scarpy (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Gidonb: I resent the implication that I had not done a BEFORE search. In fact, I managed to find two sources... about the half-marathon they ran near the road. If you want to adopt it and find sources, that's great, I'd support a draftify but unless there are significant sources, and someone points to them, it's unlikely that this be kept. I empathise with the people wanting to keep this, I really do, but I trust my own judgement (a terrible idea, I know) and I honestly can't find the sources. If anyone can suggest a good WP:ATD-M target, I'd be happy with that too, but frankly exclaiming that there must be coverage isn't that convincing. On the other hand, if an argument is made for historical significance, I would be inclined to strike my !vote.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alpha3031: I never implied that you did not do a WP:BEFORE. You say that you failed to find sufficient sources for a keep and I agree. It's not the only misconception you promote above. I stated that sufficient WP:INDEPTH sources exist for WP:N. This means that the article should stay per WP:NEXIST and not per WP:MUSTBESOURCES as you falsely assign to me. There is no difference between the positions of all keep sayers here. All succeeded where others, including the nominator, failed. It is true that the existence of quality sources should not surprise anyone for good reasons (and I did point these out) but I always check and stated that I did. The fact that this article has been assessed by WikiProject China as being of Mid-importance should also have been a red flag WP:BEFORE the nomination and its support! gidonb (talk) 04:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gidonb, yes you've stated that in-depth sources exist, and so have the other keep !voters, but none of you seem inclined to point out which sources you're referring too. That is, in fact, my only contention, and I'll say now I'd definitely strike my !vote if even a single in-depth source is pointed out to me, but all I've been able to find are passing mentions. Again, maybe it's obvious where the sources are, but hey, maybe pointing them out would save the closer some time too (I guess it was a little confusing, but I will accept an argument of historical significance as well, in lieu of sourcing, not in addition to it).— Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alpha3031: I made a point of directly adding references and historical significance in the article. It has so much more lasting value than discussing all these ~~lame~~ nominations. This is of course just the tip of the iceberg. I found much more in Chinese. gidonb (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb: That's great, but what you've added are all passing mentions. That a temple, or a foreign affairs ministry was built on it doesn't make it notable, if it's noted as a centre of culture because of the buildings surrounding it would. I see now that you've added that Chaoyangmen was originally called Qihuamen. That is excellent, and I'll be striking my delete now. I would have felt better if you'd just provided one of your significant sources instead. I'm sorry if I'm coming off as obtuse, but the keep !votes weren't that convincing without a single substantial link. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alpha3031: If you look carefully, you will see that several of the sources I added contribute to the notability of the subject. Personally I view ill researched nominations as obstructive, since they needlessly take energy away from the article space. Thank you for the compliment and I was really happy that you are now taking WP:NEXIST into full consideration, as is evident from your comment below your original opinion. It makes the discussion somewhat worthwhile! gidonb (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets GNG per review of available sources; suitable encyclopedic content. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:04, 31 August 2018 (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.