Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tai Wan Road

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 redirect to List of streets and roads in Hong Kong. (Non-admin closure.)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tai Wan Road[edit]

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

Non-notable street in Hong Kong. The article fails to provide sufficient sources or even details in the text, to support its notability. Delete as per Wikipedia:Notability and WP:RS.

The article was previously PROD but the tag was removed by James500 with the comment, "Wikiped'ia is a gazateer. You are meant to look for sources with a search engine. Is in Google Maps. Plausible redirect."

To counter this I need point out that Wikipedia is |not a gazetteer (geographical dictionary or directory used in conjunction with a map): see WP:NOTDIR. Nor is it a tourist guidebook: see WP:NOTGUIDE. The sister project, Wikivoyage, would be a better home for this content.

It is insufficient to say that sources exist: see WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. You should name sources to prove notability. Before PROD a search was done. Before the AfD another search was done. This road is only mentioned as an address for various buildings or traffic ordinances. No source found gave any information about the road itself.

The existence of this road in Google Maps is irrelevant. Every road in the world seems to be in Google Maps: see Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability. Coverage in Google Maps does not prove notability. Rincewind42 (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC) Rincewind42 (talk) 08:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Five pillars clearly states that Wikipedia is a gazetteer. James500 (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. James500 (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. James500 (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The number of similar nominations is irrelevant. Besides it is not a mass nomination. The world "mass" is an exaggeration. You are implying that no time or consideration was given to the article before nominating. This is not true. Considerable time was given to it. In contrast James500 is mass opposing. Did you actually read the article or search for sources before posting here. The reason for nominating is that this subject is not notable and unreferenced. Please make a contribution here that deals with that issue. Rincewind42 (talk) 01:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Maybe not a "mass nomination" (although this was not mentioned in this discussion), but still 37 articles PRODed and/or AdDed within a few days. It's certainly requiring a considerable time from the community to deal with that. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 05:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I agree that this is a non-notable road, I would like to point out that the assertation that "Wikipedia is not a gazetteer" is erronious. Quoting the Five Pillars: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. However the gazetteer portion of Wikipedia is, by long-standing consensus, limited to roads at the state-numbered-route level and above; all others must pass WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 26 August 2014 (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.