Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Union Street, London
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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 05:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Union Street, London[edit]
- Union Street, London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Nominating as this is a seemingly non-notable London street. In my opinion the sources do not seem to establish adequate notability, two of which are just the websites of places on the street. Jenuk1985 | Talk 02:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep This street is covered by the British History Online website with its own chapter. I have added historical information and a reference. This is a major and important street in Southwark, central London. See also the discussion for Southwark Street under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southwark Street. Similar arguments apply to Union Street. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 10:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the sources in the article and above. Major central London street.--Oakshade (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note nominator also nominated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southwark Street & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marshalsea Road for deletion. Ikip (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD was mentioned on WikiProject London Ikip (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing administrator This page has gone through signifigant improvements, with added sources, since deletion nomination. Ikip (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep well researched article, clearing showing notability. Ikip (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per the massive improvements, I believe that it is now good enough to keep. Sources are there. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 07:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow keep the now improved article. Nice work all. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:58, 3 March 2009 (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.