Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. James's Place

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. B music ian 04:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. James's Place[edit]

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

Contested prod. The reason given for prodding was "Unremarkable street, only one block long, that appears to fail WP:N, as I can find no substantive treatment in reliable sources." The reference supplied when the prod was removed hardly constitutes the "significant coverage" required for the establishment of notability, and the other reference is a Web page that doesn't even mention the street except in the addresses of a couple of businesses. If this street (51°30′21″N 0°08′23″W / 51.5057°N 0.1398°W / 51.5057; -0.1398) is worthy of an article, then every street, no matter how small, in every city is worthy of one. Deor (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is rather depressing. I found this central London street name yesterday under the name of a company, St. James's Place Wealth Management Group, so I moved it and started a stub on the street itself. The street is several hundred years old, with lots of interesting buildings on it and famous former tenants. Within 14 hours of creation, Deor had prodded it, and when I removed the prod and added a source who described it in 1720, he nominated it for deletion 33 minutes later. I can see no reason to do this to stubs. Why not wait to let them grow? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About the title: it should be St James's Place, without the dot after St. I don't want to move it now in case I mess up the AfD template, so I'm leaving this note to explain the discrepancy between the title and the text. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The street is notable and I shall add a source to demonstrate. Note that, per WP:5, Wikipedia has the function of a gazetteer and so should have links for all such historic streets. Whether they lead to separate articles or articles about the districts should not be a matter of deletion. Warden (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that a street becomes notable just because someone notable (even Breakfast Rogers) once lived there. Or did South Greenwood Street in Chicago become suddenly notable when a former resident became president of the United States? Deor (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the street were hundreds of years old in the centre of the grandest part of an old city, and several famous people had lived there, then yes it might make an interesting read, if given time to develop. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is that the street is actually quite notable because lots of famous people lived there. I have added a few more and there's more to come. Warden (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: 17 separate entries, some with multiple components, on the National Heritage List for England, ie "notable", Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, notable and interesting but needs development...Modernist (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Maculosae tegmine lyncis's National Heritage List link. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Clear notability and adequate available references, though the article could be expanded. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is now well-sourced enough to satisfy the GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close, the article needs expansion, not deletion. Notable as said above. Till I Go Home (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficiently historical and with enough of architectural interest to justify an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Contrary to nom, it is a remarkable street, as indicated by the number of listed buildings and notable residnets. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and passing User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_Streets by flying colours. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As well as the 15 listed buildings on St James's Place, which is a very high proportion for a short street, there are three bollards and seven lamp standards listed, which is evidence that the street, as well as its buildings, is considered to be of significance. --AJHingston (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2012 (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.