Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Main St - Hamner Ave - Milliken Ave

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 delete. ✗plicit 13:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Main St - Hamner Ave - Milliken Ave

[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)

I tagged this with notability concerns when reviewing instead of deleting, but the tag was removed quickly. This was just accepted at AfC, but I'm not sure why - the sourcing's nowhere near good enough in order for it to pass WP:GNG. Taking to AfD in order to resolve any conflicts. SportingFlyer T·C 13:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 13:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It really is rather depressing when a page is put up for deletion so fast without the nominator reading the talk page, where I noted the lack of referencing and WP:Gazetteer as the acceptance rationale. I make a practice of being steadfastly neutral when AFC acceptance of mine is sent AFD, and I see no reason to break with that practice. It will be kept or deleted at the community's will Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOROAD makes clear we're not a gazetteer for roads, which require GNG to be met. I don't see that being the case here. SportingFlyer T·C 13:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the community will decide. It's always amusing where two things collide like that. I think AfD is the best place to solve it. I shall remain neutral and watch with interest Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cant see anything more than this road goes from A to B so doesnt really provide any encyclopedia value. If the related South Main Street Palms Historic District is actually of note that you would expect that to have an article of its own. MilborneOne (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete By lumping together three non-notable roads like that, the creating editor has virtually guaranteed that notability cannot be established — what source is ever likely to discuss these as a single concept? (Not to mention the a horrible article name this creates!) Fails GNG and NGEO. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see nothing to suggest that the road itself is notable. Any historic significance applies to, well, the historic district as a whole, and the source provided does not indicate that this particular street (or set of streets) is independently notable. The other sources appear to be routine coverage of roadway/bridge rehabilitation, and the existence of a mall along a street does not make the street notable. Fails WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:30, 24 June 2021 (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.