Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Street, Edinburgh


 * 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. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Bernard Street, Edinburgh

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This street/article isn't particularly notable and reads like a history guide Angryskies (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The street is historic, dating back about 5 centuries, and so we would expect some history. This is not a reason to delete; quite the contrary.  The topic is notable, being covered in sources such as Leith Through Time; The Sculptured Stones of Leith; The History of Leith. Andrew D. (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. And what's wrong with a history guide on an encyclopaedia? Historic streets are frequently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per Andrew Davidson and Necrothesp. Satisfies GNG. "Reads like a history guide" is simply not a valid argument for deletion. An encyclopedia should include history, and I don't think that the expression "history guide" actually means anything in English. It looks like gibberish. James500 (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per the arguments above. However it would be good if someone could add information about Bernard Street that comes from the sources Andrew Davidson mentions to further show its notability. Dunarc (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete This doesn't actually appear to meet WP:GNG having reviewed the sources in the article and a couple sources presented above - just passing mentions of the street don't count as significant coverage. The Sculptured Stones of Leith in particular doesn't give significant coverage, just mentions. I understand this will likely be kept - there's definitely a problem with the nomination, and I would vote keep just on a failure to mention a proper reason for deletion in the nomination, but just because a street is old doesn't mean it's notable - it requires sources discussing it apart from who it's named after. SportingFlyer  talk  00:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The street is absolutely full of listed buildings: . As such it satisfies NGEO. James500 (talk) 05:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:GEOROAD, the appropriate geographic notability marker, points to the WP:GNG, not to anything having to do with listed buildings. SportingFlyer  talk  06:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The buildings are clearly part of the street. GEOROAD actually says that notability varies, and is obviously intended to refer to roads that have no buildings. In any event, all those list entries provide an enormous amount of coverage that satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin. James500 (talk) 06:21, 15 September 2018 (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.