Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous streets

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 This list as it stands is unsourced original research. This deletion occurs with no prejudice against sourced recreation. A category may also make sense. JoshuaZ 02:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous streets[edit]

WP:NOR; Highly subjective title and list. Original Research needs to be used to decide when a street considered famous enough to be added to this list. The list includes "major city streets that have some celebrity or historic value". Every major city street in the world has some degree of historic value, unless it was recently built, so more original research needs to be used to decide if a street has enough historic value for this list.Masaruemoto 03:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unmaintainable, POV, poorly defined, OR, etc. Resolute 03:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and give the nominator a barnstar! This is exactly the kind of article that AFD was designed to get rid of. Yechiel Man 04:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Keep useful information, and easy to decide if a street should be included: does the street itself have a wikipedia entry (that doesn't count as OR). The page has been around for a year and lots of folks have put work in to it, so it is maintainable. Certainly more maintainable, useful, and notable than List of fictional restaurants. Capmango 06:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With all due respect, I urge you to check out WP:AADD. It may not be a policy or guideline yet, but I think these discussions would go much better if it were followed. Specifically, see WP:USEFUL, WP:EFFORT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also, whether or not a street has an article in Wikipedia is not the best way to decide if it should be included, in my opinion. This is because Wikipedia articles are constantly in flux, and Wikipedia itself, as an "anyone can edit" wiki, is not a reliable source. Charlie 07:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Let me try to state this better in light of all that: I think for a hyperlinked encyclopedia which contains entries on famous streets, it makes sense for such an encyclopaedia to include a page that shows what all those streets are. Probably a category is the better wikipedia way to handle this, rather than an entry. So my suggestion is now convert to category, also possibly Transwiki to WikiTravel. Capmango 14:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And just to also clarify, since my points about usefulness and effort seem to have been misconstrued: my point about usefulness was not that it was generally useful information, but that it was a useful organizational tool within wikipedia, so WP:USEFUL is not applicable to what I was trying to say, and my point about it being around for a year with people working on it was not a WP:EFFORT argument, it was a response to the assertion that the page was unmaintainable. If it's been maintained successfully for a year, then it appears to me to be maintainable. Guilty as charged on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, though. Capmango 17:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my opinion back to keep, after seeing geography argument. The streets should also be put in a category, but the geographical organization would be lost in a category, and its useful for an encyclopedia to have a geographically-organized list. But remove the streets that don't have entries. Capmango 14:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a shame, because the article is quite well crafted, but I think that the inclusion criteria are not succinct enough, or well-defined enough, to keep this list. As the nominator pointed out, it does not specify what counts as "celebrity or historic value." If no independent source asserts these qualities, then their assertion by editors of the list, logically necessary as a prerequisite for inclusion in the list, must constitue original research. (Sorry if that came out muddled - getting tired.) Charlie 07:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the items in the list are all notable and have a common link. Sure, perhaps "famous" is subjective, but aside from numbers and dates, everything's subjective. Useight 15:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if kept, I have no strong opinion whether it is, it ought to be renamed to remove "famous", which I'll assume is meant as a synonym of "notable" in WP parlance, which is implied. Carlossuarez46 17:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hmm... this may be better as a category, as Capmango suggests. Something to consider. Charlie-talk to me-about what I've done 18:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there were text here explaining each street's notability, then I would vote the other way. But as it is, this is just a list with no redeeming qualities which can't be covered by a category. Note that I normally say that lists and categories are not the same thing, but in this case, they are. Corvus cornix 21:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Categorize As most of its subjects have articles, it seems to be a novel topic. If you believe criteria is vague, then nominate the offending street for deletion. If this is deleted, then create a Category:Streets, as this is an interesting topic. Reywas92^{TalkReview me} 21:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, that already exists! I suppose it can be deleted then. Reywas92^{TalkReview me} 21:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - And move to "List of Notable Streets" We already have criteria for notability on Wikipedia, so that should be sufficiently NPOV/specific. There is already a category for streets, but this list is structured (organized geographically) and qualifies as serving an informational purpose per WP:LIST. -Chunky Rice 21:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Without commentary this is just listcruft. Corvus cornix 01:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not familiar with that requirement. It's not at WP:LIST. I mean take a look at List of Presidents of the United States. Lead in specifying criteria, structured list (chronologically). No commentary. Or is that also listcruft? Somehow it got Featured List status. -Chunky Rice 01:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as way too subjective. Many streets I consider famous are missing. BH (T|C) 02:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wouldn't any famous street have an article, or be a candidate to have an article that wouldn't get deleted too easily, and thus appear in Category:Streets? 132.205.44.134 03:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chunky Rice; having organised lists to supplement the category system is a good thing. The finer details of the inclusion criteria is an content decision that can be discussed on the talk page. John Vandenberg 03:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete strongly per nom. I second the barnstar. If only this mentality could be moved to the Category:Lists of songs. Hint hint. Sleep On It 11:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve-- I agree that there should be some commentary and not just a list of streets; not everyone knows why London's Abbey Road is famous, nor even that it's in London, for instance. I like the concept. It's not really subjective; clearly, the fact that most of these streets have their own Wikipedia articles shows that their famous. Everybody should learn the significance of Madison Avenue, Wall Street, Broadway, etc. in New York, and Downing Street, Carnaby St., Fleet St., etc. in London. Moreover, if Chundrigar Road in Karachi is well-known in Pakistan, then I'm interested in finding out more about it. I'm not sure of the significance of some of the entries, like Dickson St. in Fayetteville, Ark., but celebrity is generally not a matter of one person's personal opinion. Hard to maintain? I doubt it. I think the Champs Elysees will still be famous tomorrow. Mandsford 22:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are some that might be limited in their celebrity

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.