Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Town Range

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The result was Withdrawn, per WP:HEY. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Town Range[edit]

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

Not a notable road. The only "reference" in the article is a directory entry for the address of a building on that road. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks a pretty central street on google maps, and seems to have been one of the central roads with barracks during the British earlier period, probably more notable than Flat Bastion Road. A few hits in google books. I'm sure there'll be an argument against this one and arguments that the street doesn't have "extensive coverage" but in my opinion it just scrapes by, and I'm pretty sure you'd find more in newspapers on it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not only a central street, it's a very important one - one of the three main streets of the city up to the end of the 19th century. I think it more than scrapes by; there are quite a few sources just on Google, and I know that at least one local has covered it in detail. I'll see if I can get some more info from the author, since I know how to contact him. The article has now been greatly expanded with a lot more info from my own resources on- and offline. Prioryman (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Formerly the area of a barracks, now home to AquaGib, BetVictor, Rock on the Rock Club and also featuring an exit to the Office of the Chief Minister of Gibraltar. The article is well referenced and a vital part of Gibraltar's history. Tonyevans gi (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:DISRUPTPOINT Agathoclea (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to Drmies, I don't think he was trying to be disruptive; it was a very stubby stub when he nominated it. I might well have voted in favour of deletion if I hadn't been there myself and knew that its importance wasn't reflected in the article as it was at the time of nomination. Hopefully the recent expansion will make the case for keeping it. Prioryman (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was stubby, but I don't think you or few others would have voted in favour of deletion after my own expansion, even before you added more. I asserted that is was within guidelines, even if you were there or not..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the history it's evident that you (and I) have expanded it after he nommed it. I'd say it's a classic example of an AfD nomination spurring major improvements, so it's all good in the end. Prioryman (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and you proved that by no means does google books contain the sum of the world's information, I was amazed that you had access to that material which didn't pick up in a google book search. Makes you wonder just how many similar topics could be written about on here which have more sources than meets the eye..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prioryman, if it had looked like this before I wouldn't have nominated it. Thanks to you and your evil doctor for the improvement, and the note on my talk page. As for Agathoclea's comment--eh, what the fuck? That's very bad manners. Now, be a good admin and close this AfD as withdrawn; you have my permission, even though you don't seem very neutral. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2013 (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.