Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klickitat 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Klickitat Street[edit]

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

While I am aware of the literary significance, that little blurb can be covered in the associated book article, and the Grant Park, Portland, Oregon article. The actual street is a very minor street that does not pass the WP:GNG on its own. Admrboltz (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The notoriety of this street is very significant, as per the New York Times - "On Klickitat Street, Beverly Cleary Is Forever Ramona" and "To Think That It Happened on Klickitat Street" - and other reliable sources [1][2]--Oakshade (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete that's interesting, I read those books many times as a kid and had no idea that was a real street. In any case delete, the real-world street is pretty clearly non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes otherwise non-notable streets become famous for being associated with works of art.--Oakshade (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Don't Care The whole wikipedia thing has become so tedious. Everything that is posted is challenged somehow by someone. I found it interesting enough to write a short article; I'm sure that others have found it interesting as well. If you personally don't find it interesting, why not just IGNORE IT? I can't imagine the kind of person who trolls around tagging things they don't see worthy, just because they can. Years ago, I came up with the term "wikihawk" for someone who patrols wikipedia for things they disagree with or find "unworthy". I made an entry for it which was promptly deleted, instantly proving my point. It's devolved into a array of fiefdoms, complete with control freaks, power struggles and ego wars. You can do whatever you see fit. googuse (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not surprisingly, Klickitat Street is a tourist attraction referred to in many books about Portland [3] as well as being important within the fiction of Beverly Cleary. Hence, I think it meets the requirement in WP:FICTION of real and fictional world significance, more so than locations in most of our articles based on things found in TV and film. Easily more famous than "Grant Park", which ought to be a redirect to the street. Nice to see something that's based on those things called books. Mandsford 01:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite the fact the street is associated with Beverly Cleary works, the street itself is just another city street. Dough 48 72 03:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on what others have said about news coverage, and it being tourist attraction. Dream Focus 09:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator does not explain how deletion, making this notable title a red link, would assist our readership. This article is currently viewed about twenty times a day on average - nearly once every hour. As we build upon Googuse's promising start to improve its content and linkage, we can expect even more traffic. This is our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep— It is not just any old non-notable street. There is significant coverage from reliable sources, mostly newspapers in this case. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade and Mandsford. tedder (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is long LA Times article about the street in addition to the other sourcing already mentioned earlier. -- Whpq (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade and Mandsford.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to have been rescued. See also why I declined the prod Purple backpack89 22:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^spout 20:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements made to the article since nomination. SnottyWong ^spout 20:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the literary connection, and sufficient inline citations, I changed this article to class=start. This is a KEEPER to me. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Now I know two things. The Muffin Man lives on Drury Lane and there's a category for things like this topic (Category:Visitor attractions in Portland, Oregon).[4] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:59, 28 January 2011 (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.