Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beaufort Street, Chelsea


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 21:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Beaufort Street, Chelsea

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The only source that directly addresses the street is the Virginia Woolf source, which is arguably primary in that regard. All other sources discuss buildings on that street (most of which have their own articles) or residents who happened to live on that street. Rschen7754 21:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Rschen7754 21:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - And? It exists, it has some buildings of passing importance, and has had some notable residents. Why ever would you delete? KJP1 (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Our policies on notability. --Rschen7754 22:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article obviously has sufficient noteworthy content. The suggestion that the information could be accessed by searching throughout Wikipedia for individual articles dealing with the important buildings and notable people isn't helpful.--AntientNestor (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable street. Plenty of notable, sourced information. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Typical article for a notable London street, based on its history, buildings and residents. How else should we organise such information? Edwardx (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The buildings in it and the people who lived there are the proper content of the article together with other ancillary information such as locality, ambience etc. Other articles then give a more detailed treatment of buildings and residents as necessary if separately notable. I think we would have almost no street articles if we restricted them to streets that have an in-depth discussion of the street as a whole without mentioning any specific buildings or people. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, because most city streets are not notable. You don't see this proliferation of city streets anywhere else on this site except London. Why is that? --Rschen7754 14:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Because its history dates back to the Romans and there are a wealth of sources to draw on. London is not over-represented it is the streets of other cities that are under-represented. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the English-language Wikipedia, so cities in English mother tongue countries will of course have more articles. New York City is the only other such city with a similiarly large population, but that only in relatively recent times (in 1800, London was already over 1 million, NYC a mere 60,000). And NYC is a much newer city; and mostly built on a grid, so has far fewer streets. Edwardx (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. plenty of historical info supported by references. To delete would be to lose a useful entry.
 * Keep — well-referenced article of a notable street included in other encyclopaedias and meeting WP:GNG. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 10:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * But does it? What about WP:SIGCOV? --Rschen7754 14:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as per u|Edwardx and the creator of the article who is well known for creating notable articles... many London streets are well documented and have deep histories with regards to the buildings there and who lived there...it makes a better encyclopedia by including them. Whispyhistory (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep As creator, I am dismayed to see so many notable British streets nominated by Rschen7754. Each has a unique history created by the structures built upon them and the people who lived there. A field in England could pass unremarked for thousands of years, then a hoard is dropped and a battle fought, a manor house built and a road run through it. The streets are the people, and the many references attest to that. No Swan So Fine (talk) 07:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. I see where Reschen7754 is coming from. Beaufort Street itself seems not notable under the WP:GNG as there needs to be indepth coverage of the street itself and not one of the article's references has this (nor have I found any). However, I disagree with the part of the nomination that seems to suggest notable buildings on the street do not contribute to notability of the street. I would think that having a series of notable buildings on a street would help to establish notability of the street, as buildings are inherently part of a street. However, here there's only the now demolished Beaufort House which precedes the street's laying out and the one listed building, which I don't think is enough. Notable people who have a connection with the street do not make the street notable as Notability (geographic features) states Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. They cannot inherit the notability of organizations, people, or events. I've no wish to delete the article as it has encyclopedic merit on the history of the street, nor do I see a suitable merge target. Rupples (talk) 05:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is that most of those buildings already have their own articles. Rschen7754 16:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing you see this article as unnecessary duplication of content and view it as a WP:REDUNDANTFORK? Don't want to misrepresent you, just trying to gain an understanding, so do correct me if I'm wrong. Rupples (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sort of. You remove the redundant content and I'm not sure that you have an article after that. One shouldn't be able to use the sources for the building to also make the road notable. Rschen7754 20:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That is fundamentally wrong. It's not an article about a road, it's an article about a street. Absolutely details of the residents and the buildings are the proper sources for an article about a street. If we didn't include those, there would be no street articles at all, which is perhaps what Rschen7754 would prefer. What does Rschen7754 propose, that a street or road article should restrict itself to where it starts and ends and the quality of the tarmacadam? Philafrenzy (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. meet GNG.  Bobherry  Talk   My Edits  14:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. London arterial of some importance. Largely residential. Coverage is sufficient for the GNG. gidonb (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2023 (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.