Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carr Street (St. Louis)

Add links
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 merge to Streets of St. Louis, Missouri. If there hadn't been an editor willing to step forward to offer to actually do this, I would have closed this No Consensus and suggested that the individual streets be passed back to AfD individually; but since there is, and to save large amounts of editor's effort, I have closed as Merge. I haven't removed the AfD tags from the individual articles; this will be taken care of during the merge. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carr Street (St. Louis)

[edit]
Carr Street (St. Louis) (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)

User:MetroFan2009 recently created about 30 street stubs for St. Louis streets. The numbered ones have already been redirected to a merged numbered streets article, but the named streets remain. All of them are identically formatted stubs, created en-masse. None of them have any sourcing, and only descriptions of where they run. None have any indication of notability. I say that referring to both the old notability criteria for streets that was at WP:Notability (Transportation) and the new proposal at Wikipedia:Notability (streets, roads, and highways).

I've also seen a general uptick in small-street article creation of the past month, and I wonder if this is part of some growing trend. I worry about the precedent these kinds of mass creations set. In either case, the uncontroversial position has always been that a normal street is not notable. It needs references that indicate it's more than simply a street, such as a major thoroughfare, or a highway. None of these, from what I can tell in the articles, meet that definition. Shadowjams (talk) 23:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Full list of nominated articles:

  • Speedy close - Probably the largest batch-nomination I've ever seen on Wikipedia. First off, the AfD is impossible to manage. It has a practically infinite amount of outcome combination possibilities (a mathematician probably could come up with a number). I would suggest to the nom they investigate the consensus with these city streets in the relevant projects (Wikipedia:WikiProject St. Louis and Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads for examples) before nominating so many articles, no less so many articles in one AfD. Customarily, streets in large city centers (most of these seem in Downtown St. Louis) are not deleted. But even arguing notability in this AfD is a frivolous endeavor. Tasking editors to investigate and research over 30 article topics in one AfD is silly to say the least. --Oakshade (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please assume some good faith. Batch nominations are entirely appropriate for this sort of issue; I'm certainly not the first to use them in response to massive stub-creation, which is exactly what this is. If there's a specific example you'd like to give that doesn't meet my description above, I'll gladly remove it. None of those reasons justify a "speedy close". You'll note that the Speedy Close/Keep reasons are reserved almost exclusively for disruptive nominations, which you've called this by implication. It's fine if you disagree, but a speedy close is certainly not appropriate here.
    As for the actual articles, I also don't think that it's accurate that we keep every downtown street in every metro center. The street criteria I linked above is quite clear about that. That reasoning applies to each article. If you have some examples of similar stubs that exist without indicating their notability, please let me know. Shadowjams (talk) 04:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If any of these articles are expanded beyond gazetteer trivia during this AFD - these of course should be kept for now (without prejudice to individual AFDs in the future). NVO (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all There's nothing to be gained by deletion here. I've browsed the sources for Carr Street and this seems to be a substantial street in a historic part of town with notable features such as a ferry across the Mississippi. If the rest are other downntown streets then they will have a similar historic character but we're not going to be checking them all out right now. Per WP:BEFORE and our editing policy, we should be exploring sensible alternatives to deletion first. Merger to Downtown St. Louis would be better than deletion, for example - maintaining the edit histories, assisting navigation, forestalling recreation and enabling the individual articles to be fleshed out as material accumulates. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Provide some of those sources please. Shadowjams (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please see the search links at the head of this discussion. Then spend 10 minutes browsing the sources to see what's out there like I did. Or have you done this for each of these streets already? Please share the findings you made prior to your nomination per WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:BEFORE is not a requirement. WP:V, on the other hand, is, and WP:PROVEIT clearly places the burden of proof on those seeking to retain or include content. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:BEFORE is certainly a requirement and failure to observe this is WP:DISRUPTION. WP:V is sensible too but citations are only required for controversial or disputed facts. Please indicate those facts to which you are referring. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The sources Colonel Warden provided from the 1870s do little to indicate that this street is notable; I would wager that I can find references to any major downtown street from any major city (or minor city) over the past 140 years. That doesn't meet notability in a general sense, and especially not in a specific sense, detailed in the links I've provided above, but that none of the deletes have referred to.
              I'm not easily offended, but please don't patronize me with reference to WP:BEFORE. I've spent plenty of time rehabilitating articles, and researching them, including the set I've nominated here (there are a number of other street articles I've not nominated, after review; from other editors). For as much as we've seen each other around AFD and other places, I'm stunned at your lack of faith in my AfD.
              That aside, none of your three references, spanning over a century, indicate some specific reason why the street is unique, other than that it's existed this entire time. The NYTimes article indicates buildings were damaged on Carr Street, the Barker book, out of 127 pages references Carr Street on one page; and the Chicago Tribune's 139 year old article on Carr Street only indicates it was frozen over. If that's all it takes I've got about 100,000 Main Street articles that need to be made. Shadowjams (talk) 09:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Please indicate the other St Louis street articles upon which you have worked so that we may understand the context of your bulk nomination. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • If you don't agree, that's fine, but please don't attack me or other editors under the auspices of WP:BEFORE, particularly when I've explained in detail my response. Are you actually accusing me of being disruptive? Shadowjams (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You have not yet told us clearly what research you did upon these topics before bringing them all here. This information would assist the discussion as most of us are starting from scratch in consideration of these places. I myself have only visited there once and so naturally would take some time to document it fully, should I wish to do so. As for your person, I applaud your Wikipedia philosophy as expressed upon your user page: "Readers first ... Stubs are critical". Please explain how deletion would be consistent with this philosophy as it seems that removal of these links would obstruct readers in locating information about these places and would tend to obstruct development of these topics. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please provide a link to where consensus was reached to make WP:BEFORE a requirement. Stifle (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ordinary streets are not notable. If there is any particular reason for notability in any particular case then that fact should be demonstrated. Leaving aside arguments such as whether WP:BEFORE is a requirement, and concentrating on whether evidence of notability of any or all of these streets has been produced, the answer is clearly "no". JamesBWatson (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete streets are not inherently notable. All of these street and road articles need to go, before they multiply even more. Gigs (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Changing vote, now that there's a place to merge all these. Mass nominations are appropriate in the case of a mass creation of articles, in this case part of a larger project Streets of Greater St. Louis. It would be a bad precedent to encourage an individual article for any street in the world. Although the headline article is moderately interesting, most of these demonstrate no notability at all: "Sidney Street is an east-west street in St. Louis, Missouri", "Utah Street is an street in St. Louis, Missouri.", "Germania Street is an street in St. Louis, Missouri", "Thomas Street is an east-west street in St. Louis, Missouri", etc. followed by a geographic identifier along the lines of "it runs from here to here". Very, very few streets are notable enough for their own article. Mandsford (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All - A mass nomination is appropriate in this case as all of the articles are related and exhibit the same problem. Streets are generally not notable barring significant coverage about the street. These articles make no claim for notability within the article body. And in case anybody is concerned that we are deleting a notable street, the contents are so insubstantial that we aren't really losing any information of significance. -- Whpq (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as per Whpq. Stifle (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I would be fine if you merged these into a Streets of St. Louis article as discussed by others here. You should do that now. The pages, in any case, won't be deleted for a few days at the earliest. Shadowjams (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • - Add sources that indicate notability and then specify which of those are notable. But note that there need to be special indications about why the street itself is notable, not just a mention of the street in history. Shadowjams (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can only hope that the administrator will look at the arguments concerning policy, since it would be a major change in policy to declare that all streets are inherently notable. The street I live on is notable, but only because I happen to live there, which probably wouldn't merit its own article. Mandsford (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that all streets are inherently notable, but these all seem to bear some historical interest and, while some (like Walnut Street (St. Louis)) may require a lot of work, while others (like Carr Street (St. Louis)) seem to be better-sourced. I think, however, that an individual page for each might be a bit of a stretch, but merging them into one article doesn't sound bad--this is, after all, an encyclopedic topic, and with the sources available (do search on Google), along with the historical context of many, would warrant a combined article like Streets of St. Louis, perhaps even merging the numbered ones in as well. • ɔ ʃ → 03:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To Jordan Wilson/ Metrofan, I'll say that I'd be happy to assist you in the transfer of your information to a user page. It would be called something like "User:Metrofan2009/Streets of St. Louis" and would allow you to work on the project at your own pace. As odd as it may sound, I like information about streets (very few people stop to think that John F. Kennedy's assassination truly was a "nightmare on Elm Street", for instance), and I think that an article that focuses on the streets of any particular city is a logical spinoff from the article about that city. What I oppose is setting the precedent for any street in the world to have a stub article that can be worked on later. Inherently notable topics can have their own stub (such as for a populated town, whether its incorporated or not). There are certain places in a town that are treated as inherently notable-- radio and TV stations, and (in practice) high schools and colleges. However, other things don't have that same status-- elementary and junior high schools do not, and, at the moment anyway, the local newspaper doesn't (I think that newspapers should be inherently notable, but the topic seldom comes up), and there will always be the "what type of precedent" debate on any expansion. Mandsford (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Look at how much has been added to the Carr Street article since its nomination. [1]. How can anyone read that now and doubt its notability? Good work on that folks. The rest could probably have information found on them as well. There is no sense needlessly deleting things, you gaining nothing by that, and if you aren't interested in it, you aren't likely to find it anyway. Dream Focus 09:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That may be a good policy reason for keeping Carr Street, but it certainly isn't a reason for keeping the other 30 or so articles. When an article is placed on Wikipeida, it has to either be about one of the inherently notable subjects referred to in WP:N, or it has to meet the general notability guidelines. It's not a matter of assuming that a subject is "probably" notable and that someone will get around to demonstrating that later. If that were the case, we would have thousands of articles every week about people, places and things that might probably be shown to be notable. In this case, the only reason that Carr Street passes is because Colonel Warden did someone else's homework for them. Great job on the part of someone other than the article's creator, but it's 1 down and 29 more to go -- until the next batch of these gets made. I have looked at all of the other street articles, and they are all essentially the same content-- (a) the street runs "north to south" or "east to west" and (b) it starts here and ends there. There is no sense in needlessly creating articles that one has no intention of ever working on. It's like declining to spay one's cat because one thinks kittens are cute, and then leaving each new litter of kittens in a public place on the rationale that "I don't want to take care of them, but there are other people who probably will." Mandsford (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your opinion is not supported by policy. It is our clear editing policy that we may start in a small way and develop articles from stubs such as these:
Colonel Warden (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:IMPERFECT is a good description on how to improve an article if the article is, indeed, about a notable subject. But it has nothing to do with WP:N, which will always be the policy to whether a topic is notable enough for its own article. If there is a policy concerning notability of streets, I will be happy to We are all aware of what the policy is about a topic having to be notable, either by WP:GNG or by one of the exceptions listed in WP:N. And we're all aware of the policy that an article about a topic which is, beyond question, notable, can start as a stub, such as when one is writing about a person who served in a nation's legislature. But the notability of a topic and the quality of writing are two separate things, and I think that any administrator will be able to separate the two. I could write a very poor article about a U.S. Congressman from the 1830s, and he would still be notable. And I could write a very eloquent and sourced article about my father, but that, by itself, would not prove that he meets the notability guidelines. Just as there is no inherent right for every person to have his or her own article, there is no inherent right for every street to have its own article. The compromise that has been followed has been to make a general article-- Streets of Albany, New York, List of streets in Baltimore, Maryland, List of roads in Hamilton, Ontario, and that option is available here. It will be unfortunate if this comes down to an "all or nothing" choice, because there is no precedent for keeping all street articles as a matter of right. Mandsford (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Carr Street is the model for the potential of all the others, that only reinforces my points for deletion. I question if the Carr Street article as it is now meets the notability criteria. What's been added to Carr Street is not, as I keep saying about Carr street as opposed to being about other stuff on Carr Street. Carr Street itself needs to be notable, and having a NRHP church on the street does not make the street notable. Shadowjams (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mandsford makes a good point. These can all be merged into a list and then the streets that are notable enough for their own article can be broken out that way as they are improved. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A satisfactory merger is not achieved by deletion. Deletion tends to obstruct good merger by removing useful search terms and links, removing the edit history and offending the contributors who wish to work upon the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing's been removed from those articles, AfD rarely removes content from articles (unless that content's inappropriate) and merger is very often a satisfactory outcome of AfDs. Furthermore, AfD-compelled-mergers actually get done, because they're done under the threat of deletion, unlike the merge templates that often (especially on rarely visited articles like these) languish for months if not longer. Shadowjams (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A good essay on the common outcome is in WP:MILL, and it probably sums this up better than I can:
"Something that is run-of-the-mill is a common, everyday, ordinary item that does not stand out from all the rest. In other words, something or someone that is "run-of-the-mill" is probably not notable.
There are many subjects for which multiple reliable sources independent of the subject do exist. One may assume on this basis that they are notable. But there are just so many of these things in the world, and they are so commonplace, that if an article on each were to be created, there would be so many articles on these alone, possibly more than there are total Wikipedia articles to this day, and Wikipedia would be clogged with these articles.
For example, a detailed street map shows every street within a city, down to every cul-de-sac with just four houses. Every city has at least several detailed street maps that have been published. But in one square mile of an urban area, there are hundreds, even thousands of streets. And there can be hundreds of square miles within a city and its suburbs. Obviously, it is not practical to create an article on every single street." Mandsford (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I would support a merge to Streets of St. Louis, Missouri. I've given it a good start, with a model of how it can be completed. Mandsford (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Some of these streets are very notable and form some of the primary roads in downtown St. Louis, which used to be one of the largest cities in the world (so I'm sure that plenty of historical sources could be found on the history of these streets). I like Mandsford's idea above about merging the streets for now into the St. Louis streets article.--Gloriamarie (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Limeisneom (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to Streets of St. Louis, Missouri per above and per precedent. When notability is established on a particular location (Carr Street should probably be relisted separately from the other ones, which clearly have not demonstrated any notability), then an individual article can be created. Nothing is really lost this way, and it is consistent with the principle of establishing WP:GNG before mass-producing articles. Mandsford (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merger would be reasonable pending detailed work on each individual street. The notability of the streets as a general topic may be judged from the following sources which I have combed from the numerous possibilities. The straightforward street atlases have been excluded to highlight the sources which seem to provide good history and detail. Unfortunately none of the details seem readily available online but some St Louis resident may wish to find them in their libraries.
  • Charles C. Savage (1987), Architecture of the private streets of St. Louis
  • A walk in the streets of St. Louis in 1845, 1928
  • A. N. Milner (1898), General information: city streets St. Louis‎
  • Cory Allan Davis (2005), On these very streets: the automobile and the urban environment in St. Louis 1920-1930, University of Missouri-Columbia
  • Norman J. Johnston (1962), St. Louis and her private residential streets‎
  • Street Lighting in St. Louis, Civic League Of Saint Louis, 1908
  • Earl B. Morgan (1908), Street pavements in St. Louis‎
  • ‎William B. Magnan (1994), Streets of St. Louis: An Entertaining History of St. Louis Street Names
  • Andrew D. Young; Ray Gehl; Mark D. Goldfeder (2002), Streets & streetcars of St. Louis: a sentimental journey‎
  • Andrew Hurley (1999), Streets and neighborhood history: a handbook for researchers in St. Louis‎, St. Louis. Public Policy Research Centers
  • Virginia Nester (1991), Streets of St. Louis, Mo: avenues through time‎
  • Oscar Newman; Frank J. Wayno (1974), The privatization of streets in St. Louis: its effect on crime and community stability, National Science Foundation (U.S.)
  • William H. Bryan (1894), The street railways of St. Louis
  • McCune Gill (1920), The streets of St. Louis

Colonel Warden (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'd be happy to do the actual merger if no-one else does. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:25, 6 May 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/Carr_Street_(St._Louis)&oldid=1087637670"