Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grant Street

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 delete. Arguments to keep fail to address notability concerns (relevant guideline - WP:USRD/NT#City streets). Neil ☎ 15:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Street

Non-highway urban arterial in Pittsburgh. These sort of streets are not notable. I prodded it, but this was removed by User:NE2 with a quote from the article; this article doesn't really assert notability about the street, but rather about the buildings that are along it. (If kept, it should probably be disambiguated, there's a Grant Street about four blocks from my present location, and I'm sure it's a pretty common name.) —Scott5114 ↗ 11:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Firstly, as a suggestion, the article should be renamed if it does not get deleted. There are many Grant Streets. A suggestion would be Grant Street, Pittsburgh, 15219 as there are 3 other Grant Streets in the area. A street does become notable if it has notable buildings on it. Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC is a prime example. If evidence can be provided that shows the street has notability particularly amongst the residents of Pittsburgh and also to see whether that street is advertised as being of importance to the city then i see no reason why this article cant be kept. Seddon69 12:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'd say Pennsylvania Ave. is more notable for historic events along it (often being used as sites of protest marches, parades, the Presidential inauguration route, and so on), which are of course caused by its connecting the Capitol to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. —Scott5114↗ 12:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - [1] if enough evidence like this can be provided then i see no reason why this article cannot be kept aalbeit be it under a differnt name Seddon69 12:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd like to know more about Grant Street, not just what's on it, otherwise it could just be a category. The Post-Gazette link is interesting and I think justifies this article's notability, but the article doesn't reflect that. (Like is the street still brick? Or was it paved?[2] I really don't know, but if it's brick, that's something that should be in the article.) User:NE2 somehow find all this interesting information and history; he might be able to help. --MPD^{T / C} 16:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; as an extreme example, nobody cares about Wall Street itself, but about the buildings on it. That is, assuming it can be reliably sourced; [3] seems to do that adequately. --NE2 19:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability is not inheritable. Streets need external notability, e.g. "Grant Street, widely known as the heart of the Pittsburgh business community" or some such. Just having prominent businesses on the street is not enough. --Dhartung | Talk 22:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean something like this: "The Pittsburgh Renaissance after World War II had continued to enhance the character of Grant Street as a corporate and governmental headquarters," as said by the City of Pittsburgh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPD01605 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Yeah, pretty much something like that would be a good start. It's a little boosterish, though, so an independent source saying something similar would be more credible. --Dhartung | Talk 04:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've let WikiProject Pittsburgh know of this; hopefully they can say whether or not it's well-known. --NE2 00:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One of the prominent streets in Downtown Pittsburgh. As NE2 pointed out, Wall Street is not notable because of the pavement on it or whatnot, but of the multiple notable addresses on it. --Oakshade 00:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But also because Wall Street has become synonymous with the stock market. —Scott5114↗ 00:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There other examples besides Wall Street that can apply; Michigan Avenue (Chicago), Market Street, San Francisco, California, Geary Boulevard, for examples. --Oakshade 01:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. No evidence it is of more than local importance, and the article arrogantly assumes it is the only "Grant Street" in the world of any interest to anyone, so renaming should be done in any event. Then there is the lack of referencing and content. Edison 22:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although this article in its current state is not of value. I believe it can definitely be worked into a better article. Even if it goes into some1's sandbox for rewriting Seddon69 22:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung. It also strikes me as odd that only the locations along the street and not the street itself are covered in the article. Maybe if it gets a complete rewrite, I'll have a different opinion. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, you should read Parliament Hill. Only 3 sentences are about the hill itself
Delete notability is not inherited, unless if it's so painstakingly obvious that everyone knows about some part of it. That's not the case here. O ₂ (息 • 吹) 23:03, 30 October 2007 (GMT)
Keep - What is on it, is intrinsic to its meaning... just like Parliament Hill is known for whats on it ... not the hill itself. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But Parliament Hill is synonymous with that branch of government, isn't it? Grant Street is apparently not, and that's why comparisons to Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue don't really hold water. —Scott5114 ↗ 08:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To a person affected by what is on it, it becommes intrinsic to its meaning, yes. Thats the point. Pennsylvania Avenue and Wall Street have no intrinsic meaning to me, because I am not affected by whats on them, yet I do understand the streets themselves are notable for what is along them. (it's Bay Street and Wellington St. for me, but thoes possibly dont mean much if your American). Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 23:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge somewhere or delete. Not notable enough for its own article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep About the only street I can think that is notable on its own is Lombard Street (San Francisco), you know, the twisty one. I am disturbed by the use of the "notability is not inherited" argument for streets. Why do major businesses have their headquarters on Grant Street? Because that particular street has a combination of features that entice important businesses to locate there. If a street only had a strip club, a scrap metal yard and a mobile home court, it shouldn't have a Wikipedia page. This Grant Street has the HQs of US Steel, Mellon Group, the Allegeny County Courthouse and Pittsburg's City Hall on it. SolidPlaid 01:03, 5 November 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.