Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bank Street (Manhattan)


 * 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   no consensus to delete, default to keep.  Sandstein  22:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Bank Street (Manhattan)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Another article on a single non-notable residential street in NYC. PROD was contested with the statement: "clearly notable street/ no reason to remove", but I'm afraid I don't see what is so clearly notable from the article or the source. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, but because I believe this article is the contribution of a banned user (User:Jvolkblum), who I also believe is the same person who removed the PROD template from the article. See Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (16th). Although some of the content is valid, from experience I do not trust any material contributed by Jvolkblum and sockpuppets. I have removed the "See also" section from the article because it only contained an external link (not appropriate for that section) and the link had no apparent relevance to the subject of the article. As for Bank Street itself, it is the namesake and former location of Bank Street College of Education (see college's history), but you wouldn't know that from the Bank Street (Manhattan) article. --Orlady (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * An Ad hominem argument against the article creator does not have baring on the notability of the topic. As for your reasoning related to Bank Street, I'm having trouble understanding your argument to delete the article; just because the article doesn't yet mention the Bank Street College of Education?  That in fact is evidence of notability. --Oakshade (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the my alleged ad hominem argument, I was referring not to the notability of the topic but to WP banning policy. Contributions by banned users are subject to speedy deletion under criterion G5. Considering Jvolkblum's record of falsifying sources (among other things), I would not trust anything that this user contributed. The fact that this article listed an irrelevant external link but did not mention a fact that might be considered to make the street notable adds to my distrust of the contributor. --Orlady (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The external link that was removed was for Westbeth Artists Community, located at the end of Bank Street as seen here (there is a map and the location is detailed as well; . . . "It encompasses the entire square block bounded by Bethune and Bank Streets on the north and south, and Washington and West Streets on the east and west". --StAuNcH ChArAcTeR (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * fyi: The article has a google maps link that shows where it is and also a link that illustrates Bank Street and its cross streets and notable structures along them (with a brief description as to its namesake at the top of the webpage). The reference made by Orlady to the College of Bank Street is a further connection that she is making to cast doubt on the issue/article. Her rationale/arguments are inconsistant and jumbled. Despite the available links on the page her preference is to act 'confused'?    —Preceding unsigned comment added by StAuNcH ChArAcTeR (talk • contribs) 19:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.   —Orlady (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - One of New York's oldest streets. The New York Times alone has at least two very in-depth articles about this street; one in 1921 entited "Improving Bank Street"   and the other in 2002 called "Habitats/Bank Street in Greenwich Village" .  --Oakshade (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * comment My understanding of the banning policy is that if this is a contribution by a banned user, it should be deleted without delay or prejudice to re-creation. I think we should hold it here until the WP:SOCK issue has been resolved. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

? what is so non-notable about this street that it warrants removal versus (for ex.)Bridge Street or Front Street? Bank street has a 'story' behind its name and there are landmark buildings located on it too (Westbeth the most significant example). ((please do not attribute the 'argument' from Orlady as I do not believe her intentions are anything but to argue 'banned user' to justify reverting contributions/edits of merit without question. Beeblbrox's comment illustrates my point. I'm sure to be removed/blocked from here, however this article definitely doesn't need to be.))  Thank You  --StAuNcH ChArAcTeR (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The 2 NYT articles are enough. We could of course delete this on the basis of the author and one of us other editors could reinsert the material with the additional refs. under our own name, but it seems a little unnecessary. DGG (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just be sure to verify the contents of the entire article. After 86+ sockpuppets, some of us long ago ran out of patience with trying to figure out which of this person's contributions are valid and which are bilge. --Orlady (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete From what I can see, it's an ordinary street. It happens to be an old one, that's all. I don't see any signs of notability here. We should remember that world-famous newspapers like the New York Times are also local newspapers as well, and cover things that nobody not in the immediate locality could conceivably care about. RayAYang (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:WHOCARES and WP:UNKNOWNHERE are not a good arguments to delete an article. Per WP:NOTABILITY, the signs of notability are it's been the in-depth subject of secondary sources, particularly the New York Times.   There are absolutely no "Local sources don't count" clauses anywhere in WP:NOTABILITY and WP:SOURCES.--Oakshade (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've reviewed the SSP case (linked earler in the AfD) and I've concluded that the user is yet another re-incarnation of the banned user Jvolkblum, which could realistically allow for this to be deleted under the G5 criterion, however, if the topic is relevant and notable to the topic of Manhattan I see no reason why it should be deleted. Participators will have to weigh up the rationale for creating such an article or whether the notability should come foremost; the latter I think should be the best determining factor. Rud  get  13:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Oakshade. The street's notability is not diminished by alleged contributions of a banned editor. If it helps maintain the "purity" of Wikipeia. then delete it for 1 second and recreate it in identical form. Seems like a waste of time, though. Edison (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Sources provided establish notability, and more is available to expand the article. Alleged taint of association with banned user is no excuse for a scorched earth policy on all articles the user came in contact with. Alansohn (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Oakshade. Link to the College has also been added.Simon12 (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.