Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Street (Dublin)

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. John254 17:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Street (Dublin)

Non-notable street in it's own right Balloholic (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:LOCAL, only notable by a select number of locals. Tavix (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither rationale above shows any evidence of determining actual notability, as defined by Wikipedia:Notability. Actually putting the legwork in to find sources, one does in fact find sources documenting this street in depth. ISBN 9780300109238 documents it on pages 669–670, telling us a lot of things from what the narrowest building on the street is to what numbers 9–13 on the street used to be. ISBN 9780946841714 page 129 et seq. tells us some additional information about the Thomas Street fire station. ISBN 9781900949989 page 70 tells us that this street is one of only four market streets in the city. There are also some sources that discuss it in the context of The Liberties. This is on the brink of satisfying the PNC. But since there's clearly verifiable information to be had, the choice, per Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Deletion policy, is between keeping and merging, neither of which involve deletion. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 06:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The argument of the sources found by Uncle G far outweigh the very weak WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments to delete this. --Oakshade (talk) 06:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Then why are these not in the article if they are so notable? If they aren't put in it will be deleted. Arguing in such a silly way is counterproductive. Improve or delete. --Balloholic (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Existing sources demonstrating notability simply not being placed in an article doesn't magically make the sources non-existent. --Oakshade (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might one day. Get them in now. I don't want to be reading about stubby grubby Dublin streets and I'm sure not many people outside Dublin do either. --Balloholic (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep' just sufficiently notable. Whether individual eds. are interested in reading about streets in Dublin --grubby or not-- is irrelevant.DGG (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How can a street be notable for having one or two buildings that have their own articles? The buildings are. The street isn't. --Balloholic (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Uncle G has managed to show that the street is notable. RMHED (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - RHMED, don't go with someone else's opinion. Use your own mind. Thomas Street fire station (seriously, the street is notable due to a fire station being located there. Let's find out where the police are...), one of only four market streets in the city (Need I say more???), The Liberties has it's own article already. "This is on the brink of satisfying the PNC". The article does not suggest this anywhere. It is about as notable as a cat's whisker. --Balloholic (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want the article improved, do it. You've been shown the sources, and you are as capable as any other editor of using them to improve this article. Incidentally, a certain type of "cat's whisker" is indeed notable. DHowell (talk) 07:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources cited by Uncle G. The street is notable because reliable sources have noted it. Wikipedia is a work in progress and there is no deadline for improvement. We do not delete articles which show clear potential for improvement when reliable sources have been shown to exist and can be used to verify and improve the contents of the article. AFD is not a place to delete things because you don't like the current state of the article, and it is not a place to impose a 5-day deadline on other editors to clean it up. "Improve or delete" is contrary to editing policy. DHowell (talk) 07:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can the information be verified though? Is it accurate? Is it something other than news material or anything other than where the fire station is or how many people write about it? Is it worthy of inclusion on an encyclopedia? It might be an unlimited encyclopedia but there are still standards. --Balloholic (talk) 14:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per most everyone but the nominator. Sources have been shown to exist. Edward321 (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are these sources? Which ones make it so important? Give more detail. --Balloholic (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2008 (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.