Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riverside Road, Oxford

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. Secret ^account 01:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Riverside Road, Oxford

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PRODed this when created as a numbingly uninteresting and non-notable streed, PROD removed "Please hold off deleting. There are a few references I need to track down that will demonstrate this is more than an A-Z road!". I see no additions to make me change my mind. TheLongTone (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There seems to be some assumption that all streets in Oxford are notable. Several of those in the centre definitely are, but this isn't one of them - it's just another residential street in Botley. It's not even in the flood-prone area close to the Thames - if it were, we could find some information in the Oxford Times about residents having to be evacuated for several weeks every few years. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Riverside+Rd/@51.751597,-1.280407,3a,75y,226.51h,80.45t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sAHDGYIm9dxSCH8GcJa2g9Q!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x4876c69aecfeb8a7:0x366f3c907e072074 Gregkaye (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic seems to have respectable sources. The fact that the nominator finds the topic boring is not an adequate reason to delete - see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Andrew (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The simple fact that something exists and can be proved to do so is no reason for there to be an article about it. As you can clearly see this is an unremarkable road, one of many thousands in the UK. That is not ^I don't like it'. Get real.TheLongTone (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first pillar of wikipedia states that wikipedia has an element of a gazetteer. I believe this article fulfils this role by collating information that is otherwise difficult to find. The article passes the criterion of "Significant coverage" as demonstrated by the citations. In contradiction to what is asserted above: Parts of the street are considered at risk of flooding (See [1]). It is mentioned with respect to flooding in the Oxford Times e.g. [2], [3].Baron Ravenscar (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The gazetteer function means that Wikipedia covers settlements &c. It does not mean that every back road in the world is deserving of an article.TheLongTone (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 01:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The painfully obvious outcome here is a merge to Botley Road. With all due respect for the "keep" opinions expressed above, this residential cul-de-sac is very obviously insufficiently notable for its own article but, with all due respect for the "delete" opinions, per WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD we should exhaust all the reasonable alternatives before deleting, and a merge to the main road is a perfectly reasonable alternative.—S Marshall T/C 11:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

commentSounds sensible to me.TheLongTone (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like pointless busywork to me. Merger is poor because it tends to bloat and confuse topics. Our readership increasingly accesses Wikipedia through mobile devices with small screens. It is therefore best to cover topics in an atomic way, in which the material corresponds closely with the title. It is our policy that Wikipedia is not paper and so there is no reason to minimise our page count. Andrew (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. The merge could be completed in thirty seconds, and our long-established and well-reasoned guidance about article length can be read at WP:LENGTH.—S Marshall T/C 00:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just because it's in Oxford doesn't mean it's notable, There is no evidence of any notability, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just because a road can be sourced doesn't mean it is notable. It's just one of millions of non notable roads. Szzuk (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2014 (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.