Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorset Street (Dublin)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. — Aitias // discussion 17:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dorset Street (Dublin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable street that has a load of pubs, fast food outlets and small retail units on it. Talkpage indicates a user who thinks this article is a stub and cannot think of anything notable to say about it. It says it is an important thoroughfare but I have searched high and low, up and down, left,right, through, centre and diagonally inside-out and outside-in, upside-down and downside-up, north, south, east, and west and I am unable to find a reason for such an absurd statement. Thanks. Balloholic (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your subjective estimation of its importance is irrelevant. Our criterion here at Wikipedia is notability, which is not subective. This street is documented on pages 189–191 of ISBN 9780300109238. It is given a fair amount of detail on page 19 of ISBN 0717127508, and several of the houses on that street are documented on page 44 of ISBN 9781900639347. The Primary Notability Criterion is satisfied. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 05:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Agree with Uncle G. Passing the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY is what counts, not one user's opinion. --Oakshade (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm sure that the first and third books cited by Uncle G cover it (the second ISBN doesn't appear to be valid), but the normal way of proceeding (I can't remember the title for the page where this kind of thing is covered) is only to have articles for the most important streets of the city. I know of at least three printed sources documenting a little residential cul-de-sac near where my grandparents used to live, but if I were to write an article about it using those sources, it would be in gross violation of the normal way of doing things. In conclusion: no "vote" by me, because I can't find any policy or even essay page dealing with this question. Nyttend (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The normal way of proceeding is Wikipedia:Notability, not editors making subjective judgements of what "the most important streets of the city" are. This is not an encyclopaedia of what is subjectively judged to be important by Wikipedia editors. This is an encyclopaedia of what is notable, i.e. what has been noted by the world at large. And this has been. (I made a typing error in hand-transcribing the second book's ISBN from its title leaf verso. I've corrected it above.) Writing from sources is not a "gross violation of the normal way of doing things". It is the normal way of doing things, per our content policies. That is what one is supposed to do. Uncle G (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What I suggest is that if this street is thought notable then please write the article properly so that it appears notable. Otherwise delete/redirect to list of streets until such a time as someone decides to bring it to that level. I realise Wikipedia doesn't have a time limit and it is a growing project but neither is a deposit for links to every street in the world. If it is to exist at the most basic level it should at least make its point of notability known immediately. There can be no argument if these streets continue to exist as they do and are not improved. One line streets in particular will not be lost through deletion as it is very simple for someone to come along later and recreate the article in a better way with many more lines. --Balloholic (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The normal way of proceeding is Wikipedia:Notability, not editors making subjective judgements of what "the most important streets of the city" are. This is not an encyclopaedia of what is subjectively judged to be important by Wikipedia editors. This is an encyclopaedia of what is notable, i.e. what has been noted by the world at large. And this has been. (I made a typing error in hand-transcribing the second book's ISBN from its title leaf verso. I've corrected it above.) Writing from sources is not a "gross violation of the normal way of doing things". It is the normal way of doing things, per our content policies. That is what one is supposed to do. Uncle G (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Just sufficient material to show notability.DGG (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Nowhere near enough. Seamus Blowin Heaney was born in a family farmhouse called Mossbawn. Will Mossbawn be getting one as well or is this just the self-satisfied Dublin street preservation society? --Balloholic (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Internationally, Roald Dahl was born on Fairwater Road, Llandaff. What sort of standard are we setting here people? Because we aren't seeing it in other countries. --Balloholic (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Uncle G. Edward321 (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not in keeping with policy internationally. --Balloholic (talk) 17:10, 25 December 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.