Although there were more Keep votes in this discussion, they did not make a legitimate argument. Two of the Keep votes cited the guideline WP:GEOLAND which is clearly not applicable to this article. GEOLAND is used for geographic regions, populated places, and natural features, not road. GEOLAND also has nothing to do with buildings which was another part of their argument. They said that since one of the buildings on that road is notable then the road must be notable too. I do not believe notability is transferable like this and we already have an article on that building there is no reason why a separate article could not be written about that building. The proper guideline is the one I cited, WP:GEOROAD. These two votes must be ignored because of their non-policy based argument and use of the wrong guidelines. The other Keep vote which cited WP:GNG actually did provide some sourcing, but they are articles about the local real estate market which seems to be WP:ROUTINE coverage. I still do not believe it has been shown that the article meets WP:GEOROAD (or GNG). Even if you think the real estate articles provide enough notability, there is still only two votes (one keep and one delete) which is not a consensus to Keep. Perhaps a relist may be appropriate.Rusf10 (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The building that you are referring to, and for which we already have an article, is located in Boston. The street under consideration is located in Hong Kong. Obviously that's not the same building and the one in Hong Kong, specifically the Hong Kong Branch of the The First Church of Christ, Scientist, is listed as a Grade II historic building and it does not have its own article. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any objections to the first !vote? If not, the very best you can hope for is either a relist or no consensus. Hobit (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The two options here are endorse or relist. There wasn't really a strong argument made for deletion apart from WP:GNG - I can understand that because looking at the page, there's not much to go on, and sometimes you think an AfD will be obvious when it's not - and there were a couple sources provided that weren't rebutted. The last two keep arguments were very weak, though, but not so weak as to be completely discountable. Sometimes you just have bad discussions - looking at the sources presented through a translator I'd probably !vote delete, but disagreeing with the outcome of a discussion that could go either way isn't a reason to overturn an AfD. I'd try again in six months. SportingFlyerT·C11:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I won't endorse as I closed the AfD, but the essential point is AfD is not a vote - in this AfD, Cunard gave the best argument in the debate, and it was not challenged. I'll also remind Rusf10 that he could have asked me to relist on my talk page instead of coming straight here. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The point about !votes 2 and 3 is valid, and they should be weighed appropriately. But the first !vote is a fine one and the closer can't discount those sources as "routine" if no one in the discussion did so. A relist outcome was available to the closer, but I think a keep outcome was the better choice. Hobit (talk) 11:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nomination says These two votes must be ignored because of their non-policy based argument and use of the wrong guidelines, clearly distinguishing between policies and guidelines. Is this claiming that the arguments breached some policy or merely that no policy underlay them? Rarely is policy (sic) involved in notability discussions. Thincat (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should have worded that differently, the "non-policy" I was referring to was the idea that if one thing is related to another thing that is notable then it must be notable too. In this case if a road has a notable building then the road must be notable too. I don't know if you want to call that a policy or a guideline, either way it doesn't exist. Additionally the two keep votes cited WP:GEOLAND, a guideline that is inapplicable to this particular article.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Could not have been closed any other way. Do not relist, it does not deserve relisting. The nominator’s opening statement was too short. Badgering the respondents does not excuse a poor opening statement. See WP:RENOM. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I'll admit I should have cited WP:GEOFEAT rather than WP:GEOLAND. That was a mistype on my part. But I fail to see how it could have been closed any other way, given nobody opted to delete. The nominator's rationale for deletion was weak, given WP:GEOROAD does not state any instances in which roads are presumed to not be notable, but merely states the circumstances in which they are presumed to be notable. "No indication of notability" just boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so you meant to cite WP:GEOFEAT, that's still the wrong guideline. GEOFEAT is for buildings, bridges, and dams, not roads. You also do not have an understanding of GEOROAD. When a road is not part of the group of roads presumed to be notable (which this one is not), then it is not presumed to be notable. This is a local road which according to GEOROAD is only "presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject." (emphasis mine) No significant reliable source coverage has been found. "No indication of notability" is actually a very good reason to delete since we're only supposed to have articles on notable topics and it still has not been shown that this topic meets our notability guidelines.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You may not like them for one reason or another, but there are sources that can easily be claimed to (and I believe do) provide significant coverage in reliable and independent sources presented in the AfD. To say that no such sources exist is either stating an opinion as fact or being disingenuous. Hobit (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland's regional roads), local roads, streets and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject. That is in no way a proscriptive statement. So I really don't think it's me who does "not have an understanding of GEOROAD"! Three editors have opined that it "meets our notability guidelines". Trying to get their opinions set aside because you don't agree with them is not in the spirit of Wikipedia debate and consensus. As to GEOFEAT being the wrong guideline, you are being disingenuous as it is entirely the correct guideline for what I actually wrote at the AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't say it was "proscriptive", what it means is that you actually have to prove the sourcing exists. And the sources should actually discuss the road, not a building that just happens to be on that road. GEOFEAT is still wrong because the road is not given notability from a building. Only one vote even made a case that GNG was met. Your vote and the one directly after that blindly parroted you made a completely invalid argument.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
