Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Münsterstraße (street in Dortmund)

Add links
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 no consensus, default to keep. There are unquestionably weak arguments being presented on the keep side, as User:The Gnome points out. In particular, given that the nomination statement clearly takes issue with the notability of the street, I am at a loss to understand the claim by User:Greywin that the nominator does not contest notability. As the advocates for deletion correctly point out, the real test here is WP:GNG, and whether the street has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. On that question, both User:Greywin and User:IAmNotU have presented cogent arguments that the street has. I am not saying that those arguments carry the day, merely that they are legitimate arguments based on policy, and this discussion has not resulted a consensus that they do not carry the day.

I will add only that the fact that the article in its present form does not demonstrate the notability that may (or may not exist) does not, under Wikipedia policies, require deletion. Steve Smith (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Münsterstraße (street in Dortmund)[edit]

Münsterstraße (street in Dortmund) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a run-of-the-mill city street in Dortmund, Germany, with no sources to support that it's more notable than any other city street around the world, only links that prove the street exists. The article also seems to have been created mainly to promote a Moroccan grocery store there (see content I removed, and the low quality image of the store that is being repeatedly added by an IP...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article about the street on the German language Wikipedia, de:Münsterstraße (Dortmund), with a totally different angle on the subject, focussing on historical buildings and its place in (local) German history, an article that if someone translated it from German could form the basis for an article here that might clear the notability threshold, though not by much. An article where an IP that per WP:DUCK (same ISP, same /16-net, same geolocation) is the same person as the IP who has repeatedly added the image mentioned above here, an IP that on de-WP tried to add the same material about a Moroccan grocery store, a Lebanese fast food joint etc as was originally included in the nominated article here, but had their edits reverted and then turned their attention to en-WP. The German article is so totally different from the nominated article, though, that the nominated article is best blown up, and a new article started from scratch... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Start Over per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't see where this article doesn't describe the reality. There is no guideline that requires an article to look like the one in the German WP. This article is definitely good enough to be improved. That's the basic principle of Wikipedia.--Greywin (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the rule or the policy about inclusion in Wikipedia on account of the article being "good""? Quality of writing on its own does not mean much in terms of a text staying up. One could post up a wonderful text about their cat; it won't stay up for long. Or "describing reality"? Are you aware of the rule saying that even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it? (See this essay for more.) An article must be about a subject that possesses independent notability, for starters. And that must be determined through third-party, independent sources. Those are the rules. -The Gnome (talk) 08:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:ATD, this is the basic principle. Nom doesn't doubt notability of the subject, instead he complains about the "quality", which would be better in the German article, and I just replied to him, that the article can be improved, just as WP:ATD says. Therefore alone this AfD discussion is to be closed, because it is about "quality" and the comparison to German WP, about information which is obviously disliked by some, mixed with a few WP:ADHOM arguments. But these are no reasons to delete an article.--Greywin (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong. The nominator most certainly disputes the notability of the subject. What do you think the use of the term "run-of-the-mill" means? It's equivalent to "not notable." In fact, Wikipedia offers a helpful little essay, titled, yes, "run-of-the-mill"! We learn from it that Something or someone that is "run-of-the-mill" is probably not notable.. Have an article for every street, must we? Jimbo help us.-The Gnome (talk) 08:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. What happens in the German Wikipedia or any other-language version cannot be used as an argument in the English Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 08:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom and run-of-the-mill city street. The article states, "Münsterstraße is a typical downtown district of a large city with a dense population.", and that sums it up. Wikipedia is not a street or travel guide. There is nothing that is "worthy of notice" on an international scale (probably not local either) to be "just another street listing". Although Wikipedia may have unlimited "space" I am sure we don't need a listing of every street in every town (here and abroad) or that the German Wikipedia may seek or allow. "If" we could get our best writers to build this article to FA status (we can't but just saying) it would still be a typical street and the always argued WP:OTHER would mean this "typical street" scenario would also have to be rehashed over and over. I have a nice street near me with a beautiful and notable lake on one side, an historical district on the other, and a "skyscraper" (22 floors). It has some cool stores and older buildings. Listing the street would still amount to an indiscriminate listing of "just a street" because not everything needs to be included in an encyclopedia. Try to add the street to the Dortmund article and see how that works. If it does then it would have a relevant home. Otr500 (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I think you did not even read this article. "It is very well-known within Dortmund and also known outside of the city and even abroad"... "The street was already very important in the Middle Ages and connected certain cities in this region". If you switch to de:, you find the street described as "one of the oldest and historically most significant" streets of the city. Excuse me, but I consider your posting off-topic. Notability is not in question, as it was not questioned by the nom. This AfD is to be closed asap.--Greywin (talk) 09:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And you obviously didn't read my nomination, because I do question its notability, or I wouldn't have nominated it, I even question that replacing the current article with a translation of the German article would make it notable here, on the English language Wikipedia ("might clear the notability threshold, though not by much"). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems you question anything, besides the substance of your own arguments, and there is in fact none (because your nomination is simply WP:IDL and WP:ADHOM, and because WP:ATD is also valid for you). There is no single guideline that allows a deletion. We have a well-sourced article about a notable subject, a well-known main street with an underground station of the same name, part of a federal road, a street, that was very important "already in the Middle Ages", "one of the oldest and historically most significant", as the German article, that you promoted here, says. If you doubt notability of the subject, please do me a favor and try and nominate it for deletion in de: first and see what happens. Otherwise it might look like this is not about the subject itself but only about disliked infomation about the subject. WP:ATD says: "The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum."--Greywin (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And, this added, why do I find your boldly presented "English language" argument in WP:IDL? The language is absolutely meaningless for the notability of the subject.--Greywin (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolabahapple: Then I assume you're not only willing to rewrite the article along the lines of the German article, but intend to do so ASAP, because the article is definitely not notable in its current shape, which is what this is about (hence "delete and start a new article from scratch..."). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas.W, in the same way i could assume that you should have been WP:BOLD and rewritten the article in line with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Nominating article(s) for deletion (C. 1.)- "1.If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." as for "the article is definitely not notable", WP:ARTN - "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article.", so really this afd should have been speedily closed as no legitimate reason given by the nominator for deletion, as for problems with editing by an ip, just semi-protect the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC) ps. instead of bickering and arguing about who should edit what (apologies to monty python:)) ive done a bit of editing to the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolabahapple: A total rewrite from scratch, i.e. removing all content from the existing article and creating all new content along the lines of the German article, isn't "normal editing". See Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over: "... if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article. If you keep the article, then you're keeping something of no value until someone replaces it with something of value, when people tend to be more inclined to fill red links. When you see this as an argument to delete, don't give up. If you can repair the article in a timely manner, then you've neatly refuted that the article is irreparable ...". Which is why I suggested you do a rewrite ASAP, because you're the one who claims it can be fixed. I you can't, or don't want to, then the article should be deleted. It's as simple as that. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
and this is where we differ, its as simple as that. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Or, rather, relißted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, without a doubt. The street clearly meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The German article calls it "one of the oldest and most historically significant streets in Dortmund", the eighth-largest city in Germany. That article has several pages of high-quality content, and 31 citations. The street has coverage in news media, travel, and history books, Dortmund Tourism has produced a video guide to the street, and the street has its own website at https://www.muensterstr.de produced by the neighborhood's Interessengemeinschaft Münsterstraße (community association of Münsterstrasse). Even the nominator admits the German Wikipedia article shows that the subject is notable. However, statements like "the article is definitely not notable in its current shape" are mistaken - the question of notability is purely whether the subject itself is notable or not, which is unrelated to how well or poorly the article is written or sourced - see WP:ASSERTN. If it is established that the subject meets the notability guidelines by the existence of coverage in reliable sources, non-notability cannot be an argument to delete the article. Possible WP:PROMOTION, too few citations, or poor-quality writing, are content issues that must be solved through the appropriate procedures including talk page discussion and good faith effort to improve the article. There is WP:NODEADLINE for that. Deletion of the page and its edit history via AfD is not an appropriate method to address content issues. --IamNotU (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that at German wikipedia, a user deleted my article and wrote the new one really only about history, and only 2 short sentences about today's state. My edits are deleted by this "agressive" user - that's why I created it here because English wikipedia is much better and friendlier. --77.182.248.213 (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
77.182.248.213, thanks for your contributions. However, "Articles for Deletion" is not the right place to discuss content issues. I have opened a discussion at Talk:Münsterstraße (street in Dortmund)#Disputed edits - May 2018, and ask everyone involved to please go there to discuss how to move forward, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "every city"? Ah, lucky you, so you had streets in your city, huh? -The Gnome (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
what about Giethoorn? "only canals and footbridges here thanks":) Coolabahapple (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you say it's "run of the mill" doesn't make it so. Is it normal for a "run of the mill" street to be the subject of a two-month long exhibition at a major museum, as Münsterstraße was in 2015? Did you even try to find sources? Did anyone ask for help at WikiProject Germany? Per WP:BEFORE, the nominator is obligated to search for sources, and if they find that sources do appear to exist - and in his second comment, he states that the German Wikipedia article "could form the basis for an article here that might clear the notability threshold, though not by much" - then there is no basis for the nomination. Also, per WP:NEXIST, a lack of existing citations in an article is irrelevant to the subject's actual notability, and before "offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search." So even if you searched and didn't find anything, the existence of a substantial article with 31 citations in the German Wikipedia should certainly be enough evidence of notability to put the brakes on a deletion. I have added several citations of reliable indpendent sources with significant coverage to the article, two of them from the regional newspaper Ruhr Nachrichten. There are more to be found. I've seen this time and again - people bringing an article to AfD without doing due diligence, and then demanding that other people do the work of finding sources or improving the article. That's not my responsibility, it's yours. --IamNotU (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't state it is run-of-the-mill of my own accord but from the evidence, or lack there-of. To be fair, I randomly picked one and it is a news report titled "Dispute in Dortmund Police prevented with large-scale escalation after mobile robbery" with an apparent address; Münsterstraße 66. This is a junk news report about a robbery that does not belong in any article. I picked another. This one is titled: "1877 - 1900 Industrial population and "social issue" Changes in urban infrastructure". Interesting article concerning a lot about the history of Dortmund, the Ruhr area and 66 mines, Dortmunder colliery, Bismarck's Socialist Law, the "father of Westphalian Social Democracy," and social democracy in Dortmund and Hörde. Two random picks and two sources that are bragged about, "31 citations in the German Wikipedia should certainly be enough evidence of notability" that I see as junk for notability of this subject.
I picked a reference from the article and this reference includes things like "with 949 crimes last year and explains: "It has not gotten worse on the Münsterstraße. More junk. Another reference is titled, "The history of Dortmund's northern city". It does include the name of the subject (passing mention) but that is about it.
Just as a lack of referencing in an article does not mean there is no notability a ton of references, that might be good for content, does not mean the article passes the criteria for a stand-alone article as being NOTEWORTHY. Mundane news reports or general sources with "passing mention" does not provide for notability, and is typically seen as refbombing if used just to try to falsely present notability.
IamNotU: I do not know if you have some connection to the street or live in the area because of your insistence that the street holds notability, but the reason there is not anyone providing notability sourcing is that they do not exist. They are not in the sources I looked at or the ones you provided. Before anyone can worry about using a lot of mundane sources, pretty much about nothing, they need to use sources that prove notability. Therein lies the problem no matter how much Wikilawyering is used. Maybe it wasn't an "agressive" (sic) user that caused the deletion of the article a user was mentioning above but the fact that there is still, after all this verbiage, a lack of notability no matter how many times we mention the article that is on the German Wikipedia. Arguments that all things can have an article on Wikipedia because there may be sources somewhere out there in the universe and demands that others "fix the article" as an alternative to deletion are not actually good arguments against deletion. You want me (us or other editors) to prove notability because it is not your job: I am stating notability for a stand-alone article does not exist. If you like the subject so much ask to have it userfied and stop demanding others do the impossible. I like history and historic places so I did try to seek out sources on notability. Please see: Wikipedia:Places of local interest, Wikipedia:Notability (local interests), and Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Just because a street exists does not mean it is notable.
Passing mention per GNG: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.". Please also note that "just" because there is an article on another version of Wikipedia does not give an automatic pass to have a non-notable mirror article on the English Wikipedia. Otr500 (talk) 07:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is enough significant coverage in independent sources to establish notability, article passes clearly WP:GNG. It should be easy to find sources for experienced authors - who seem to be active here - which are not necessarily web sources. Instead they seem to do everything to get the article deleted, writing dozens of lines instead of improving the article. The criticism here is exaggerated by far, and I can't stop to wonder if certain content of the article still might be the reason.--Greywin (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I am stating notability for a stand-alone article does not exist." You keep repeating your opinion that no sources that would establish notability exist, but it seems to me that you could try harder to find them - which is your job, if you are arguing for deletion - and are willfully ignoring strong evidence that they do exist. With regard to the sources I just added:
  • [1] writes about the history of the street, from the middle ages to today. That is not a "trivial" or "passing mention". And despite the site having the word "blog" in its name, it is a legitimate and reliable local news outlet, with experienced journalists and editorial oversight. The article is in the context of the two-month exhibition on the subject of Münsterstraße, by the Museum für Kunst und Kulturgeschichte. This is certainly something unusual about the street, and thus it can't be considered "run of the mill", per that essay's description. Should Wikipedia have an article on every city street that has been the feature of a major museum exhibition? Absolutely!! On the article's talk page you have dismissed this as contributing nothing to notability. I don't see under what rationale that is justified.
  • Two articles in Ruhr Nachrichten on the subject of Münsterstraße, and its problems with crime. Again, much more than a "passing mention" of Münsterstraße, they deal directly and in detail with the subject of the Münsterstraße neighborhood and its social issues. It's entirely different from the mundane example of "The side street where once every few years, a news-reported crime has occurred" given in the "run-of-the-mill" essay.
This coverage is significant - beyond a passing or trivial mention, multiple, independent, reliable - news organizations with a reputation for fact-checking, and secondary. Thus it satisfies the requirements of the relevant guidelines WP:GNG and WP:NGEO/WP:GEOROAD (and WP:GEOLAND as Münsterstraße is not only a roadway but also a populated place, an unofficial neighborhood). These are just a couple of examples from the news media that I found on short notice, that are clearly more than "the street exists". It doesn't consider for example, coverage in German history books which may not be available online, but again are strongly indicated by the existence of the very substantial German Wikipedia article.
Furthermore, though this is not required or even mentioned by the relevant guidelines, there is ongoing attention to the street over time by a regional-level newspaper for the Ruhr (the largest urban area in Germany), beyond passing or trivial mentions, showing that it is more than just local interest, which in other (not applicable) guidelines indicates "a strong indication of notability" (WP:AUD). And even Wikipedia:Places of local interest says, about places that "may be well-known locally, but little-known outside the community", that "It may be considered that if enough attributable information exists about the subject to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article." As there is already a full and comprehensive article in the German Wikipedia, it makes sense - even if only local sources were found to establish notability. But that isn't the case, given the Ruhr Nachrichten coverage... --IamNotU (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why so much text over simple issues?
(1) Everyone please stop using the term "German Wikipedia" in your arguments! What happens there is irrelevant. Enough is enough.
(2) Please also stop invoking blogs as sources. We do not get to decide if blogs are "legitimate and reliable local news outlets"; Wikipedia has already passed judgement on self-published news and commentary websites as sources. They are unacceptable. Enough with blogs.
Just these two cutbacks will make the dialogue smoother. And our life easier. So, pretty please, with sugar on top, support the process. -The Gnome (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(1) WP:OTHERLANGS does not say it's "irrelevant". It says an article in another wiki "does not indicate, by itself, that a topic is notable" (emphasis mine), as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Reliable sources are still required. But that doesn't mean it's irrelevant, or that it's not allowed to speak about it. We are asked to use common sense above all. What it demonstrates is that there is a strong likelihood that there exists sufficient attributable material to create a substantial article. And, that flat-out assertions that "notability for a stand-alone article does not exist" should be treated with skepticism and examined more closely, before permanently deleting it. Once an article is deleted for non-notability, it is somewhat difficult to bring it back, despite those arguing that they're just doing a "blow up and start over". If you want to do that, create a stub. There's no need for AfD.
(2) We certainly do get to decide whether a particular website can be regarded as a reliable source or not. I believe that Nordstadtblogger, despite the name, doesn't fit the definition of a personal or "self-published" web page given in WP:BLOGS - "self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources." It is a (small) news organization with a website they call a "blog", which is per WP:NEWSBLOG acceptable if the writers are professionals and the articles are subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. According to their "about us" that seems to be the case, although it's apparently on a volunteer basis. Perhaps I'm mistaken about it, you're welcome to ask at WP:RSN whether it could be considered a reliable source for local news. --IamNotU (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Other-language Wikipedias are irrelevant as far as notability is concerned. The term "irrelevant" paraphrases quite accurately the policy. You gave it verbatim, I paraphrased it. German Wikipedia articles are not proof of their subjects' notability here in the English-language Wikipedia. That's the point.
(1A.) My (informed) opinion is that, on the basis of what we have seen so far, notability for a stand-alone article for that subject does not exist. You disagree. Fair enough.
(2) You invoke WP:NEWSBLOG but I'm afraid that rule actually goes against your argument. It talks about blogs by established news organizations. (Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs.) Nordstadtblogger does not belong in that category. It's a stand-alone web host of opinion pieces and personal commentary. It correctly calls itself a blog. -The Gnome (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I definitely did not get the impression that Nordstadtblogger is a "host of opinion pieces and personal commentary". It seems to be a typical small-town/community newspaper, and the articles I browsed seemed to follow usual standards of journalistic reporting. The news desk is run by the former editor of a mainstream mid-sized daily regional paper, the Westfälischen Rundschau. The writers are described as "experienced journalists", though I can't vouch for what that means exactly.
If you're saying that the existing citations (including the ones available to us from the German Wikipedia article) are so far not good enough in your opinion to establish notability, that's not entirely unreasonable, and we can agree to disagree. Maybe you could help find some better ones? What is entirely unreasonable, is to insist on an a priori assertion that the street is run-of-the-mill, that "the reason there is not anyone providing notability sourcing is that they do not exist", and that finding such is to "do the impossible", and therefore you are exempt from the provisions of WP:NEXIST to search for sources when arguing for deletion, when numerous facts and common sense strongly suggest otherwise. From the Notability Guideline at WP:NEXIST: "an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." In my opinion, it's already been found. If in your opinion it hasn't, then you're obliged to help look for it. The article can't stay forever without sources establishing notability. But it also can't be deleted before people make a serious, good-faith effort to find them. --IamNotU (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article is well sourced, it is well sourced that the street is important, and Nordstadtblogger is a regional site that obviously follows journalistic standards and is not a personal commentary.--Greywin (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • Hey, this article describes reality. Really? Then how about articles on today's weather or my hair? Those article would also describe reality. But is that enough? Uh, nope: Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.
  • This is a well written article! Indeed it is. Unfortunately, a well written text is no justification for inclusion. One could write some great text about their cat. But it'd get deleted. (Unless the cat's famous!)
  • This article is good enough to be improved. That's the basic principle of Wikipedia. I'm afraid the basic principles are the so-called five pillars and we find nowhere in them such a notion. You are probably confused with the WP:ATD policy, which states that if editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. All this means is that if a badly written article can be improved, we should not rush to delete it; we should try to improve it. Which is quite fair and logical. Having a badly written text, should not be cause for immediate deletion. On the other hand, having a well written text is not by itself a reason for the article to exist.
  • The nominator does not dispute the subject's notability Does, too. The expression "run-of-the-mill" used by the nominator means in English something ordinary, something that lacks notability. Do I have to provide text even for this? Aww, alright, here goes: Something or someone that is "run-of-the-mill" is probably not notable.
  • The article exists in the German Wikipedia! So what? Wikipedia is not the same, thank god, across all languages and cultures. What's notable in German Wikipedia under their rules and practices might not be notable in another Wikipedia. And, lest we forget, Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia.
  • Lack of existing citations in an article is irrelevant to the subject's actual notability. You misunderstand the meaning of the rule you're citing. WP:NEXIST says Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources; not their immediate presence or citation in the article. This does not make sources and citations "irrelevant" as you seem to think. All articles most certainly do require them! The rule simply instructs editors to search actively and thoroughly for sources and citations before rushing to delete an article. That is actually made even clearer in WP:BEFORE. So, the question comes back, as always to this: Do we have source-based notability, yes or no?
Fine, then, so let's talk about sources.
  1. Nordstadtblogger article: A local blog/local news website talks about a 2015 exhibition whose theme was that street. Even the title is a give away ("Nichts besonderes," it says, i.e. "nothing special" but "unique for the city").
  2. A brochure about the same local event.
  3. Article in the local paper, Ruhr Nachrichten, about the high level of crime in that particular street. Does that make it notable? Then we should have an article about Borsigplatz too. Or the whole northern city.
  4. Complaints about empty flats in the neighborhood. The neighborhood and not specifically the street ("Die Nordstadt ist ein Karussell, in dem sich die Probleme weiterdrehen": "The northern part of the city is a carousel, etc.") which is mentioned only once, since the interviewee has his business there.
  5. Another crime committed in the area ("Bereich Münsterstraße/Heckenstraße ": "The area of Münster street and Hecken street").
  6. Historical articles about the first settlements of the city of Dortmund. They're supposed to support the notion that "The street was already very important in the Middle Ages and connected certain cities in this region." However, nowhere in those articles appears the name "Münsterstraße" (Die Anfänge der Besiedlung, Königshof - Königspfalz - Königsmarkt, Dortmund wird Reichsstadt, Aufstieg der Stadt im Spätmittelalter, Reformation und 30-jähriger Krieg).
  7. Stats about the ethnic constitution of "the quarter where the street is located."
Read my lips: There is no source-supported notability. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of existing citations in an article is irrelevant to the subject's actual notability. The "immediate presence or citation in the article" of sources is completely irrelevant as to whether the subject is, in fact, notable or not. I did not say that citations are not required in an article in the long term. In fact I said "The article can't stay forever without sources establishing notability. But it also can't be deleted before people make a serious, good-faith effort to find them." You continue: "The rule simply instructs editors to search actively and thoroughly for sources and citations before rushing to delete an article. That is actually made even clearer in WP:BEFORE". Correct! And all the more so, if evidence such as a major museum exhibition on the subject, or the existence of a substantial article in the German Wikipedia calling it "one of the oldest and most historically significant streets in Dortmund", etc., although in itself is not a substitute for proper sources, would by common sense strongly indicate that the existence of sources is likely. And "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." It's not like I'm claiming there might be a teapot orbiting the sun. Given the evidence, it's very likely that sufficient sources exist and just haven't been found yet (though several people believe they already have) - in part because the nominator and delete !voters have not made a serious effort to find them, despite the strong indications, and their obligation to do so. "So, the question comes back, as always to this: Do we have source-based notability, yes or no?" No. The question does not come back to that. The question is, "how likely is it that sources exist?" If common sense says "very likely", then those proposing to delete must try harder to find them. Convince me that you've done a thorough search for sources. Then we can talk. Have you looked in a history book about Dortmund? Have you even searched the online sites of the major German newspapers? I don't think you have. --IamNotU (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I won't try to "convince" you of anything. I rest my case. Take care.-The Gnome (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So just to be clear, you are now arguing to delete, on the basis of non-notability (which is not what your original !vote says, since "start over" is not an option for a non-notable subject), and despite having read WP:NEXIST, you haven't really searched for sources, and you don't intend to? --IamNotU (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"To be clear," no, the subject is not Wikinotable, and no, I did not change my stance, the whole text deserves to be WP:TNT'd and start again from scratch, in order to salvage some chance at N-proof, and no, I don't want to waste much more time on this issue. Yes, take care. -The Gnome (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand WP:TNT to mean, delete the entire article and its history. It's used in cases where a subject is notable, but all past versions of its content are 100% unencyclopedic and useless, for example entirely a copyright violation, unsourced blatant promotion, or content which is not actually about the subject. It has little to do with notability. If an article about a notable subject contains some properly referenced material, as this one does, it's not a candidate for that. You've referenced WP:DRAFT - do you mean to draftify the article, keeping its history? I don't quite understand the "start again" part of what you and/or Tom are saying. Or what you mean by "salvage". If you believe that the subject isn't notable, and none of the content would be useful in another article, shouldn't it just be deleted, end of story? How is what you're proposing different from a plain delete? --IamNotU (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Gnome: again and again you are reading the article only selectively. It is well-sourced that: "The street was already very important in the Middle Ages and connected certain cities in this region. It had also a significant share in Dortmund's process of becoming a major city." This alone is enough for a street to be kept as a important road because of its history. Then, on top of that, there was an exhibition, how many streets are subject of an exhibition? Even if the exhibition says, that today the street may be nothing special anymore, it definitely was in recent centuries, and this is sourced by the brochure of this exhibition! Above all that, the street is known as a crime spot which is sourced by state-wide and national newspapers articles. The sourcing of the article may be not perfect, but is much, much better than the average stub sourcing in Wikipedia. If we delete this article becaus of the sourcing, we would have to delete hundred of thousands of WP stubs. It is by far enough - and according to WP:ATD there is in this case no other selectable option but to keep and improve the article.--Greywin (talk) 10:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Greywin, I imagine the deletionists would argue It can be legitimately argued that historical research, published by the City of Dortmund, about the city of Dortmund, technically can't be used to establish notability, because it's not independent. Also, technically the fact that there was a major museum exhibition doesn't in itself prove notability, though common sense says it does. The guidelines call for published sources - for example, the Nordstadtblogger article. With regard to the argument about "nothing special" in the title (and that is the title of the news article, not the exhibition), that's nonsense. The title says "nothing special aber doch einmalig". The word doch is a bit difficult to translate (Google just ignores it), but it means something like "on the contrary!" or "it is too!". In other words, the title means something like, "it might seem like nothing special (i.e., run-of-the-mill), but actually in fact it is really unique/one-of-a-kind (i.e., noteworthy)". Hence, the reason for having an exhibition and writing news articles about it...
About the attempts to dismiss the Ruhr Nachrichten articles:
"Article in the local paper, Ruhr Nachrichten, about the high level of crime in that particular street. Does that make it notable? Then we should have an article about Borsigplatz too. Or the whole northern city."
"Complaints about empty flats in the neighborhood. The neighborhood and not specifically the street ("Die Nordstadt ist ein Karussell, in dem sich die Probleme weiterdrehen": "The northern part of the city is a carousel, etc.") which is mentioned only once, since the interviewee has his business there."
Appeals to WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST aside, first, Ruhr Nachrichten is not "the local paper" but a regional paper for the entire Ruhr area, one of the most heavily populated regions in Europe. Also, the difference is that the examples given make a passing mention of eg. Borsigplatz as the location where a crime happened to take place, while the ones cited in the article directly and in detail cover the social situation in the Münsterstraße neighborhood. Münsterstraße is not only literally the street itself, but (unofficially) the neighborhood too; the news article refers in its lead to the Münsterstraßen-Viertel and that the subject of the article is the Zustände in dem Quartier, the situation in the Münsterstraße quarter/neighborhood. One more thing - we do have an article on Borsigplatz, and the Dortmund#Nordstadt section could easily be expanded into a full article. At that point I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a merge-and-redirect of both Borsigplatz and Münsterstraße into Nordstadt (keeping all their histories intact) if it made sense. But that's a content/organization question that doesn't have anything to do with notability. --IamNotU (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to anticipate the arguments of deletionists. The brochure is by the Museum für Kunst und Kulturgeschichte, it has no interest in faking the history of a street, also the city of Dortmund doesn't have any interest to do so, and such a content in a publication about an exhibition is usually edited by the historians of the museum and based on scientific books and research papers - that do exist for sure and can be used to expand the article at any time. And I would oppose a merge and redirect, as there is enough material for articles about Münsterstraße, Borsigplatz and Nordstadt.--Greywin (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Greywin, if you will present arguments at AfD, it's necessary to know which arguments to avoid, and to anticipate the arguments that other people will make. I am neither a deletionist nor an inclusionist - if anything, I'm for fairness, consistency, and common sense. If there is a valid argument based on policy and guidelines, no matter who makes it, no matter if it is for or against, it has to be acknowledged! Decisions are made on the basis of consensus, but that is not simply the consensus in one particular AfD discussion. The consensus of Wikipedia is contained largely in the evolving policies and guidelines, that are gradually influenced by these discussions. That's why the quality of arguments and counter-arguments is more important than the number of people giving them. There can be 100 people arguing delete with low-quality arguments, and 2 people arguing keep with high-quality arguments, and it will be found that the consensus is keep! There is a well-written description of the requirmements for sources supporting notability at WP:ORGCRIT, most of which applies to geographic locations (though not WP:AUD). The brochure may be considered secondary and reliable for the reasons you say, and therefore used to support facts about Münsterstraße, because it meets the requirments for verifiability. But it, and the exhibition, (arguably) may not be considered independent, which is necessary in establishing notability, because the museum is a public institution supported by the City of Dortmund. I would consider that far-fetched and against common sense, but it could be challenged. "A primary test of notability is whether unrelated people with no vested interest in the subject have actually considered [it] notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it." That's why the article in Nordstadtblogger is important, as it fully meets that definition. You say that the brochure is "based on scientific books and research papers - that do exist for sure and can be used to expand the article at any time." I'm sure you are correct, and it would be very helpful if you could actually name and give citations to these! On the other hand, as I have said several times, it's the responsibility of people before nominating or arguing for deletion, not the ones arguing to keep, to do a thorough search for sources. So far I see little or no evidence of that...
About "merge and redirect" - that's a simple process of normal editing that anyone can do, or undo. It doesn't require formal discussion or decision (though a message on the talk page is nice). It's just a way of re-organizing material between article pages. For example, the Borsigplatz article is at the moment quite short. If someone wrote an expanded article for the Nordstadt, it might be better for readers to move the material from the Borsigplatz article into it, so that it would all be in one place. But that doesn't mean that Borsigplatz is not notable - it is. Later on, if someone wanted to expand the Borsigplatz article again, they can easily do so, because the article and all its history still exists "behind" the redirect. It's very simple to bring the article back again - but that's not true if an article has been completely deleted because it's been found not-notable. --IamNotU (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The first victim on a one-sided conversation is the truth, as it is here. We are labelled "deletionists" (as if that's what we do, we go around deleting articles; must be in our genes) and of course our arguments are distorted (I supposedly changed my stance and did not search for sources; this after a detailed exposition of most sources as worthless). Well, if nothing else, this discussion has been educational. -The Gnome (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we're the Deletionists, they must be the Keepists! Well, there are worse ways to murder English, I suppose. -The Gnome (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry you took offense at the word "deletionist". I've struck it out. I didn't know that apparently it would be regarded as a slur, as described at meta:Deletionism. I do get the impression that you have a somewhat "conservative inclusion philosophy", but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I see that you've done a detailed analysis concluding that the existing sources are worthless. But I don't see anywhere a statement that you've made an effort to find new ones. That was my question. About changing your stance, at this point I honestly am not clear what your stance is. I'll reply to your comment about that above. --IamNotU (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note While others are talking about philosophies and who offended whom, I added 3 4 reputable literature and 2 3 web sources. I'm looking forward to read the first It's all crap statements, but on the other hand we could finally find a common sense to end this senseless discussion.--Greywin (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Updated.--Greywin (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge and redirect to Dortmund. Which needs a lot of work to trim unsourced stuff. People get hyper-local too much in WP and this warps our mission which is to give high level, encyclopedic knowledge. We are not a travel guide. If it gets too big there (based on strong sourcing) then a WP:SPLIT discussion can be initiated. Jytdog (talk) 03:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it into a 100KB article, and then better split it... ok. There is no guideline that defines "our mission" as to give "high level, encyclopedic knowledge". Every small village, every rock in the Antarctic has an article here, but not a well known and historically important street with a well sourced article? This must be a complete misunderstanding what Wikipedia is. And this article is definitely not a travel guide, it highlights the historic importance of its subject on the base of scientific sources.--Greywin (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As it seemed that none of the... persons arguing for deletion... were going to step up and actually search for sources, and I felt bad that Greywin was all alone, I Googled "Dortmunds lebendiges Pflaster", the official motto of the street. I only had to look to the fifth result: an in-depth piece about the Nordstadt as a "social flash point" in Germany, with a focus on Münsterstraße as its main street and central neighborhood. I haven't yet transcribed much from the article, but it's there for others to expand from. I guess Die Welt, as one of Germany's four national newspapers of record, could be considered a reliable (and not hyper-local) source?
I don't get the repeated references to a "travel guide". Maybe Americans relate to Germany as a European holiday destination, but people in Germany generally would like to learn about the country, its history, and its present situation. And, especially for recent immigrants, I don't see any way that it's a problem to offer such "encyclopedic knowledge" in detail and in English.
I had hoped that the original author of the article, apparently a Muslim who probably lives or works in the area, and who seemed very motivated to write about it, might produce something interesting. Yes, the first drafts were overly promotional-sounding, and yes they started to edit war when they got frustrated with grumpy old farts erasing their work. I still had hopes that with a friendly reception and some mentoring, they could learn the ropes, but unfortunately by now it looks like they got chased away. I'm happy to see that Greywin is taking on some of the work, and in general to see people building up Wikipedia rather than tearing it down.
As I said, I would not be opposed to a merge-and-redirect (and I'm always happy to see that proposal to WP:PRESERVE useful content, instead of a straight delete) to a section in an expanded article on the Nordstadt - if such an article existed. However, I think there's already too much to be merged into Dortmund, without throwing away (or hiding behind a redirect) a good deal of encylopedic material about a notable subject. --IamNotU (talk) 03:08, 24 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Münsterstraße_(street_in_Dortmund)&oldid=843048025"