Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gascoigne Road

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. Philg88 ^♦talk 18:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gascoigne Road[edit]

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

Non-notable street in Hong Kong. The article fails to provide sufficient sources or even details in the text, to support its notability. Delete as per Wikipedia:Notability and WP:RS. Note that existence does not prove notability. Wikipedia is not a directory of streets or a travel guide. The information in the article would be better suited to WikiVoyage. The article was previously PROD but the tag removed with the comment, "at least some substantial coverage found, doesn't belong at prod". However, no additional references or links to said 'substantial coverage' were added to the article leaving the notability issue unresolved. Rincewind42 (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Substantial coverage is cited in the article, although the nominator evidently disagrees that it's substantial coverage. This is one of a large number of cookie-cutter nominations intent on wiping out the existing comprehensive coverage of the streets of Hong Kong. I don't think these deletions would result in an improvement to the encyclopedia. I wouldn't necessarily object to thoughtful, substantive mergers of these street articles into one or more collective articles in keeping with the teachings of WP:PRESERVE; wholesale deletion is not consistent with my conception of our editing policies and the values that explain why this project exists. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One editor created a large number of cookie cutter articles on Hong Kong streets. Almost all the articles I have nominated were created by the same editor in a short space of time. There seems to have been an effort to create a directory articles about every street in HK irrespective or notability. They contain the same reference to a tourist guidebook or no reference at all. The reference only proves the existence of the road not the notability. The article doesn't even mention why the road is notable. Just because it is a large road does not mean it is notable. Most of the information within these articles is original research rather than based on sources.

In contrast to the creator, these are not cookie-cutter nominations. The text used above may be repeated but before nominating time and care is taken to research the subject. The article history is checked and if the article can be improved then it will be. I would like nothing better than for the article to be improved and Wikipedia to benefit. If you posted sources or edited the article and made improvements then I would happily withdraw this nomination. However, you seem to argue that the article is just fine the way it is and that nothing need be changed.

While the quality of the article is not great, that is not the reason for the nomination. It does have some information. Wikipedia has a sister project called WikiVoyage to which I also contribute. All these road articles would make an excellent addition to that site. While Wikipedia is not a tourist guidebook or directory, WikiVoyage is. If you want to preserve these article, copy them over to there. Rincewind42 (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1: I seriously doubt that the information of this article would be suited for Wikivoyage. Nevertheless, if you think it is, as your introductory note unclearly suggests, I would encourage you to move it there, rather than only requesting a deletion here. You say that you are a contributor to Wikivoyage, so I would very much appreciate if you made the effort to transfer the content there rather than asking whoever is reading your mass nominations to do it.

Note 2: "if the article can be improved then it will be" => but you haven't improved ANY of the 34 articles that you have PRODed or/and AfDed. Wasn't there anything to be improved there? "I would like nothing better than for the article to be improved and Wikipedia to benefit" => then ask for it! PRODing/AfDing and requesting an improvement are not the same things.

Note 3: "The article history is checked" => so what? This article (Gascoigne Road) has been created 8.5 years ago. It had 34 edits. And suddenly you come and say "I want this article erased, NOW". Same thing for the other 33 articles. Is it urgent to delete them? Does it make Wikipedia a better place? Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This street and the article about it seem to fail WP:GNG completely. It seems that the sole purpose of this article is to document that there is, in fact, a street in Hong Kong by this name and to document exactly where it is. That seems best left to Google Maps rather than an encyclopedia. I don't believe the purpose of WP is to document every street in the world, or even Hong Kong. I don't even know why WP has an article on List of streets and roads in Hong Kong (or any other city for that matter). Anyway, nothing in the article seems notable and I can't find any references where the street itself was notable or any notable events have ever happened on the street. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 16:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Gascoigne Road flyover has been the scene for quite a number of traffic accidents, and is one of the monitor spot for traffic conditions by the Transport Department, as seen frequently in the realtime footage it provides to newcasters. If this can be used (with support of further citing) then it probably makes a case of notability. (t/c) 05:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: J 1982 (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC) As above.[reply]
Keep The historical sources satisfy GNG. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have substantially expanded the article, with references, since the nomination, and I believe that it is at this point decent enough to be part of Wikipedia. Additional mentions of the street are in books not online. Also, Chinese language sources have not yet been exploited. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 04:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the main roads of Kowloon, and of historic interest. This AfD is part of a mass nomination of HK streets and the nominator has seemingly made little effort to differentiate non-notable streets from the notable. Gascoigne Road certainly falls into the latter category. Thanks to those who have added content recently; I hope to do the same when I have time. Citobun (talk) 06:21, 18 August 2014 (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.