Category talk:Streets in the City of London

Advice on non-total dichotomy - how streets are covered here, keeping it fair
Of a prominent street deemed by the status quo/opinion of editor(s) not to merit its own article (yet already/needing to be a redirect, for a street of note to a ward or heavily associated with a landmark) editors should still cover it judiciously. That is very concisely but fairly, where its proposed/actual content meets WP:UKGEO or perhaps the history subject guide (e.g. under sub-redirect/avoiding excess article creation principles) so is expected to be imparted.

It follows, by contrast, writing many – and worse, quasi-promotional often seen with grandiloquent words – sentences on a fairly short, unremarkable street, while (often) keeping it down at (or near) "stub class" but just perhaps over the own-article WP:N threshold (so having its own article) should be avoided, for undue WP:BIAS or digressing into being a local/specialist work. The relevant guidance is WP:NOTBOOK and keeping it to WP:N of encyclopedic so global potential use.

It would be ideal if City wards, tiny as they are, could have a section: Notable Streets to host the redirects for those streets/closes having just one or two pithy facts of encyclopedic notability to say about them. I wonder if people who also research here would agree this is rarely the tack taken to date – wholesale consolidation into wards coupled with deletion of the most stand-on-own-feet-dubious streets will not go down well with editors who are among champions of particularly historic or still probably interesting streets. - Adam37 Talk  07:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)