Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Hill 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 delete. Tone 16:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Red Hill Avenue[edit]

[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)

Article is unsourced and does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Per the US Streets wikiproject, streets are generally not notable. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references, also not much content. Peter James (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Part of a large batch of repeated creations on local streets in Southern California by the same user. Most have already been deleted; Carlsbad Village Drive and Harvard Avenue, Irvine, California are currently prodded (and Harvard should probably by deprodded and taken to AfD because it was already deleted under the name Harvard Avenue (Irvine, California)). I rescued Culver Drive, Irvine, California based on some historical significance but even there notability is marginal and I think most of these lack even that much. In this specific case, one can argue that the name "red hill" itself has some local historical significance as a state historic landmark [1] [2] but I don't think that extends to the street. I made some searches and while I did find a couple of newspaper articles about the street itself [3] [4] I think they're too local and routine to provide enough notability through WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly does not meet notability standard, especially when compared to existing articles on U.S. streets. Sounder Bruce 02:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails GNG as noted above. Imzadi 1979 → 20:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of encyclopedic notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, clearly fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 13:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with nom and others. MB 02:18, 25 November 2019 (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.