Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walton Well Road

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Courcelles (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walton Well Road

edit
Walton Well Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A street that's a couple of hundred yards long, with (as far as I can see) no remarkable structures in it or other features that might make it notable. The references included in the article egregiously fail to meet the WP:GNG's requirement for significant coverage in reliable sources, and I'm not finding anything better. Deor (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — I have added more references for notability (including books, probably on on the web) and believe that this road meets general notability guidelines. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google news and Google book search shows ample results. In the summaries of the Google book search returns, they do speak of the road and its railway. Dream Focus 18:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A road can be ten yards long and still pass WP:GNG as this one does. --Oakshade (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If someone can name at least two specific sources with substantial coverage of the road itself, I'll withdraw the nomination. The Encyclopedia of Oxford may be one (it at least seems to have an entry on the topic, though it's not available online), but I'm not seeing any others. Deor (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no requirement that more than one reliable source gives significant coverage ("expected" is not "required"). It all depends on the depth of the coverage of the source and the Jericho Echo piece is very in-depth. This in combination of the lesser coverage from multiple sources does indicate further notability. Coverage not being available online does not disqualify it from being actual coverage. Print sources are allowed.--Oakshade (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note — The Peter Snow reference is substantial and the Tanis Hinchcliffe references are numerous. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The reference list includes some which are not about Walton Well Road but rather something near it, and some which are not reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a directory of every short road in the world. Edison (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That source is about Walton Street, which is different from Walton Well Road. Deor (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I gotcha. I still think there's enough coverage to warrant an article. It's not overwhelming though.--Oakshade (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources provided seem quite adequate for our purpose. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note — There is no evidence that WP:BEFORE bullet point 10 was followed for this new article. ("If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.") — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Geographic information is encyclopedic. To me, Hope (2003) demonstrates that this sreet is historically tied to the geography of the region, providing sufficient notability. (No one questions rivers or mountains for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Since WP is not a paper encyclopedia, we have ample room for articles like this.) I do think that the lead should be expanded to identify these other geographic features and and then Walton Well (Oxford) as well as Walton Ford (Oxford) should redirect to this article. Human history is closely tied to geography; if it weren't for the ford we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Hope (2003) verifies this connection. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article doesn't appear to assert notability to me. I just see notable topics associated with the location. Could someone clarify for me why this is notable for its own sake? - BalthCat (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing that out won't affect the outcome of the AfD at this point, but I'm glad someone else noticed. Deor (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2010 (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/Walton_Well_Road&oldid=1069473181"