Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portland Road

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep per consensus here, though continued debate on whether to redirect/merge this information elsewhere is encouraged on the talk page. Arkyan • (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Road[edit]

Portland Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Completely unimportant bog standard suburban road, like thousands of others in London and across the world. Nothing notable apart from there having been a murder recently. Regan123 17:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no evidence of notability. The murder mentioned by the nominator isn't covered in the article, and even if the murder is notable (which it might be), the road isn't. Walton Vivat Regina! 18:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is a major road, with a documented history going back over 500 years, and home to a number of notable 'firsts' (the world's first overpass, the world's first atmospheric propulsion system etc). I've expanded the article somewhat and if it's kept will tidy it up & expand further. I wish that instead of nominating this kind of article for deletion seven minutes after it was created, people would tag it and/or raise the matter of whether it can be improved at the relevant WikiProject (in this case, WikiProject London). - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Was it called Portland Road when the overpass was built? Did it follow this particular route? Regan123 14:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes it was - don't have an exact date for the name but was certainly in place by then (see the Metropolitan Police link in the references for examples of the name in use in the mid 19th century). The Beulah Spa opened in 1831 so the road must have been in place by then; given that it connects Long Lane & Norwood Hill, which are both mediaeval roads, I'd be surprised if Portland Road's not mediaeval as well. Mediaeval records certainly show buildings at the northern end of it (where Manor Road & Goat House Bridge branch off now). - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although the road appears to hover on the edge of being notable enough for Wikipedia, it is a major thoroughfare in the South Norwood and Woodside, London areas, and it does appear to be possible to find some independent material on the street through a Google search. Also note that the road is a segment of the A215 road and therefore may be considered as notable as the myriad of other state and local highways that are listed in Wikipedia. I am therefore inclined to keep the article. (Wikipedia could use specific notability guidelines on roadways for cases like this one.) Dr. Submillimeter 19:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of its history. If the road has been around for nearly 500 years, that's longer than just about all the United States federal and state highways, and those articles always survive AfD discussions. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've expanded it further and added an 1845 illustration for a bit of background context. I agree that there doesn't appear to be anything particularly notable about the murder, which is why I haven't mentioned it in my expansion of this article. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the above, the murder actually took place on a different Portland Road. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep on the basis of its history, as above. Andy Mabbett 21:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even when the atmospheric railway stuff has been moved to a better place, there is plenty to say about the road. -- RHaworth 22:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree the atmospheric railway stuff ought to be somewhere else - probably under London & Croydon Railway - but as the site of the pumping station was on this road (and led to the overpass etc being built), I think it warrants staying on the road's entry as well. Besides, it gives a pretext for the picture, which I think is - if you'll pardon the expression - atmospheric. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied the atmospheric-railway stuff to London and Croydon Railway, but as I say above, I think that (if the road article is kept) it warrants staying on the road's entry as well. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments : So what is notable the Jolly-sailor station and the London & Croydon Railway or the road? Just because something notable exists / existed on a road doesn't make the road notable. Is there anything about the road that cannot be easily covered in the A215 article. In comparison, perhaps this AfD is relevant. As per the original nom on that, is the road central to the story? I see it has already been tagged for merger as well. To compare it with a state highway seems slightly odd. Perhaps we should have every London Road listed. Age doesn't make something notable - the M1 motorway is notable and is young compared with this road - I know which is notable. Regan123 22:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - by that logic, everything here can be deleted straight away, along with pretty much every road entry - even Oxford Street, Fifth Avenue and Champs-Élysées are only notable for what's on them, not for any intrinsic notability of their tarmac. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't follow you. Short articles do not put in place a lack of notability - I never said that. This road is simply not notable - it is a bog standard suburban road that happens to have had something to do with a railway line. The roads you quote are known throughout the world. How well known is Portland Road? What is about the road that makes it notable today? As to your other point, where have I suggested the deletion of these roads? I have done some work on many of them. What is in this article that can't be covered by a couple of lines in A215 road and the merge that has been tagged on the article? Regan123 23:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Wikipedia is not a tool of the United States. There is a world outside of the USA with a long history. This article must be kept as it deals with local history and is very well written. Xanucia 22:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am a UK Wikipedian who lives in the area of this article. Regardless of whether it is well known what makes it notable? Regan123 23:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Main and historic London road. Is "notable." --Oakshade 03:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In no way is this a main London road. It is a non primary A road that happens to have had something on it at one time. What makes this particular road notable? Regan123 14:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - As said before Regan123 it is a main road in South London not every road that's important has to have primary status. Think about Oxford Street does that have primary status? NO. Anyway why has there not been a tag put on Dartmouth Road (in Forest Hill)? If either of them should go it must be Dartmouth! It's much less important than this article, but has never been tagged! Pafcool2 07:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not a main road, it is a non primary A road. The various sections of the A23 road don't have individual sections. Why does the A215 need them? No unique notability has yet been provided for this road. I will nominate the road you linked to as well shortly. Regan123 08:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are precedents for non-primary London roads that aren't famous in their own right having their own articles, eg Green Lanes, Camden High Street. I'd support moving the content and changing the individual road names into redirects to subsections of the single A215 road article, along similar lines to A1205 road, though. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a precedent, agreed - in fact there are times (like A4202 road) which goes the other way. As to the merge and redirect, I'd be more than happy with this. I have already done so for South Norwood Hill. Regan123 20:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and it's already been reverted! Man, that was quick... - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not recommended to turn an article into a redirect while it's open for discussion at AfD. If there is a consensus to blank the article and redirect it, point it out for the closing editor. -- zzuuzz(talk) 19:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that - but seeing as I wrote all but three lines of the article, and as Regan123 argues above it makes a lot more sense to have it on the single A215 road article, didn't think it would be particularly controversial; when I expanded the article I should have expanded the section on the main article which it duplicates instead of creating a content fork. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:31, 8 April 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Portland_Road&oldid=1220813933"