Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newbridge Avenue

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. Sandstein 10:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newbridge Avenue, Dublin[edit]

Delete - A non notable avenue, which mentions being the setting of an event in a famous book which of course deserves its own article, but this avenue doesn't Balloholic (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another one that doesn't meet WP:50k by a country mile...delete. Grutness...wha? 00:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not a matter of just deserts or an arbitrary number. What matters is sources and this place has them in abundance. I have added a few citations to demonstrate. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- But there are no sources. This avenue is just like every other one in Ireland - not notable. --Balloholic (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous sources. I have cited some and provided links to others in the article's talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Estate Agents, Property Developers - They are not genuine sources. There is a house being sold on nearly every street in the world. --Balloholic (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A source such as A Topographical Guide to James Joyce's Ulysses is not of this sort and there are numerous others like this. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Well if they exist, get them and put them to some use. Ulysses isn't the be all and end all of everything. Find more references. Is this avenue notable for anything other than appearing in a book. --Balloholic (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you can't just dismiss a swathe of sources because they don't suit your case. For example, the Queen of England is just notable for being the Queen. She doesn't need to be a great author, acrobat and/or footballer too. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm afraid you are mistaken Colonel Warden and perhaps need to read WP:N and its related sub-policies. Sources and verifiability to not automatically make something notable. Fails WP:STREET by an impressively long margin. Trusilver 20:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. WP:STREET is just User:Grutness' personal opinion (and so the redirect is misleading) but it says, "Notable streets and roads can be divided into two types: those which are inherently notable due to some specific historical, geographical, or other quirk ... The first type of street is usually notable enough for an article in its own right." This street is clearly of the first type due to the quirk that it plays a significant part in a novel which has received extensive literary interest and analysis. Therefore, by WP:STREET, this article is notable. And since it is notable in the usually way, per WP:NOTABILITY, we're good. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything notable about the street in its own right. Being part of the action of a major novel does not in itself make a street inherently notable; the novel is notable, the street is not. As to the essay, yes, it is simply a personal opinion, but one which is used by a large number of other editors too - and no, the cross-namespace redirect is not misleading, it is common practice for extensively used personal essays to be linked in this way (and the redirects from Wikispace to it were resoundingly kept when brought up for deletion last year for just that reason). Grutness...wha? 23:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your memory is faulty. When WP:STREET was proposed for deletion a year ago, there was the delete nomination plus one delete and one keep and the close was no consensus. And your concept of inherent notability is flawed since all streets only inherently consist of some paving and street furniture. What makes them notable is always something else - their buildings, uses, destination, history or whatever. The only test remains whether the subject has been noticed in reliable sources and this one certainly has. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My memory is not faulty, but your reading of what I wrote appears to be - I said that redirects were resoundingly kept. have a look at the one above, for instance, which is for the redirect WP:50k. The result was a snowball keep after no-one other than the nominator saw deletion s being appropriate. As for my concept of inherent notability, it relies largely on WP:N, which lays things out pretty clearly. As far as WP:N is concerned, this street does not meet the required notability standards. Within the context of Ulysses, it deserves mention in the article Ulysses (novel). Outside that context, there's nothing - the best web hits for it are for estate agents, which are hardly the reliable secondary sources required to meet notability standards. Find me one reliable source that is not primarily about the novel, and my views on this subject's notability may change - since it would also make it closer to meeting WP:N. Without those sources, though, or some other reason why the street may be regarded as intrinsically notable, it does not meet those standards. Let's take an analogy here: the article on Penny Lane - another street best known for references to it in a notable creative work. There is no separate article on the lane itself, however - there are details about the road within the article on the song. The street is not notable enough for its own article,. despite being an important feature of a major creative work. Similarly, there is nothing notable about Newbridge Avenue itself - any fame it has is through references to it in Ulysses. It does not deserve its own article; all it should have are details within the article on Ulysses. I would have no objection to a separate subarticle (e.g., Places mentioned in Ulysses (novel) or similar. Such an article may indeed be appropriate. Certainly it would make more sense than a bundle of articles on streets which have no inherent notability in and of themselves. Grutness...wha? 00:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Penny Lane article is a peculiar mix of music and geography. Abbey Road (street) and Abbey Road (album) seem better. As for sources, you seem to suppose that your personal rule excuses you from doing any work yourself. No matter, I am used to such commands from those who are too busy deleting the work of others. I have just added a citation to the Encyclopedia of Dublin which has an entry for this place relating its history in other connections. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I read all the above and found it to be a waste of time. Even the suggestion that this is notable is the same old brand of no-hold-barred unmitigated inclusionism that suggests that if some dumbass somewhere, sometime once wrote anything published about something, then obviously it is deserving of an article. That's so moronic that I can't bring myself to even humor you by arguing the point. Trusilver 04:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(to Colonel Warden) Thank you for your objectionable and insulting suggestion that I am not doing any work myself and am "too busy deleting the work of others" to do any. If I thought this article was borderline and worthy of saving, I would have done what i could to save it - as I have done with dozens of such articles brought up for AFD. In this case, however, the road is so far below the requirements of notability that it seems unlikely that - unless someone is actually on the ground in Dublin with a secret source of information about the place unknown to the web - there was no way that anything I could do to it would save it. FWIW, I have deleted only a smallnumber of articles in comparison to the number that I have created or improved over the years I have been on Wikipedia. As for "QED", your comments do indeed demonstrate something, but not, I suggest, what it is that you are trying to demonstrate. If even a significant tome like the Encyclopedia of Dublin can only provide you with one small sentence worth mentioning on the road, and that on a fairly unnotable aspect of it, then they definitely demonstrate the lack of notability of the place. You comments also clearly demonstrate difficulty in arguing to the subject of the discussion and a definite penchant for directly attacking those who disagree with you rather than the points they raise. QED indeed. Grutness...wha? 22:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One sentence? Is this another of your arbitrary numerical rules? I have added some more sentences and structured the article into three paragraphs which demonstrate this location's notability in three separate respects - its appearance as a significant location in Ulysses; its topography and history; the current high prices of property there. I may well find other aspects of the place which merits inclusion - the main difficulty is that there are hundreds of sources to select from and so poring over them is laborious. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I suggest a redirect to Ulysses. --Balloholic (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the sheer utter irrelevance of much of the above discussion and have solved the problem. I notice Grutness speaks some sense. Article will be redirected to the more NPOV link located here. --Balloholic (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you are withdrawing your proposal that the article be deleted? Colonel Warden (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all notable in its own right Warden and I really don't think it should exist. I stick to my safely locked guns on this matter. --Balloholic (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — There are Newbridge Avenues all over the world (maps.google.com, anyone?), so a redirect is inappropriate (as is this article). Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Disambiguate. A list of Newbridge Avenues from across the world. However this one will merely be mentioned on it discreetly and will not have an article of it's own I'm afraid. --Balloholic (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That won't help, especially given that none of the world's Newbridge Avenues seem particularly noteworthy. There's very little evidence that the ones in Sunderland, Wolverhampton, San Mateo and elsewhere are in any way worth articles. The most notable one other than the one being discussed here seems to be the one in East Meadow, New York. Given that Eleanor Roosevelt briefly lived there, it may be more noteworthy than the Dublin one, but even it would be struggling for a stand-alone article. Grutness...wha? 23:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - A list will do. Better than one non-notable Dublin avenue. Failing that, this article should be transferred to the NY branch of editors I expect will be waiting in the wings to take on the task described above. That is - all Dublin material will be filtered out and the article converted to an American one. Either way this ought to be deleted and passed on for New York to deal with. Let them sort it out. --Balloholic (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The move was useful in that it addressed the risk that Newbridge Avenue could have been redirected to something re Ulysses, which would be an inappropriate assertion of ownership over a highly generic name. Redirecting Newbridge Avenue, Dublin to something related to Ulysses would seem appropriate. I can see little need for anything but redink at Newbridge Avenue once this discussion concludes. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- nothing in the arguments above demonstrates notability. It is just another NN street. We cannot have an article on every street in every city. Once many articles used to have a "Popular Culture" section, full of trivia, such as minor literary allusions, and allusions in film on TV etc. These were deleted wholesale sometime ago. Let's not have this trash back, even the high-literary part. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is the numerous sources which well demonstrate notability. Your argument about every street in the world is debunked at WP:ALLORNOTHING. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient indications of notability, and sources to show it. There will probably be sufficient sources for every individual street given in Joyce. They have all been included in the immense literature on his works, since they are considered characterizing elements. I would not necessarily say this about other authors.DGG (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Several books are listed as sources, making this entry notable. travb (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. So several books mention little locations in fictional worlds like Narnia, MiddleEarth or Hogswarts. Does that make every nook and cranny in them all notable? And more to the point what are these sources? If one says a baby seal was murdered here in 1752 and another says a dog died of genital herpes and rabies here in 1534 and another says a woman tripped and fell flat on her face and broke her front nose and left ear in 1991 - does that make such a place notable for an encyclopedia? No it doesn't (because I know someone will be silly enough to answer yes to that!) --Balloholic (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't bother trying to argue that point. Inclusionist, or whatever he's calling himself right now, is only here pushing his agenda that EVERYTHING is notable pretty much without exception. Trusilver 17:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am very uncomfortable with the different signatures and I was taken in until it was pointed out above. How do we know she hasn't contributed to this or any of the other street conversations under different names? This has moved me. I think her opinion should be disqualified. --Balloholic (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete James Joyce maybe be highbrow but the notability is still fictional and if this street is notable it has to have relevance in the real world. The rest of the article contains nothing to demonstrate notability. Themfromspace (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- The reliable sources provided in the references section highlight the street notability per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) ~~(a real policy in Wikipedia, not a fictional policy as WP:50k)~~--Jmundo (talk) 07:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As of now, that is only a proposed policy, not a real policy as you stated. Themfromspace (talk) 06:40, 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.