Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church Road (Harlesden)


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Church Road (Harlesden)

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

A random street in a random area of London, no obvious notability? Jenuk1985 |  Talk  18:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Geographical locations are generally accepted as notable. D rew S mith  What I've done  18:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * On what basis? Every street in the world certainly isn't notable. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  19:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying every street in the world dserves an article, I'm saying policy states that geographical locations are considered notable. D rew S mith  What I've done  20:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you going to link to this policy or leave us guessing? Jenuk1985  |  Talk  21:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability (geography) D rew S mith  What I've done  22:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm.... did you read that before linking to it? I couldn't find the line that said "any old location is notable, as long as it's a location". It does say "named geographic features" are usually notable, but goes on to clarify that this means mountains, lakes, islands, etc. If you read closer, you'll see the link at bottom for One_street_per_50,000_people, which explains exactly why an entry like Church Road (Harlesden) isn't considered notable. Hairhorn (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Populated, legally-recognized places are, by a very large consensus, considered notable, even if the population is very low." and at WP:Notability (Geographic locations) "Based on recent consensus demonstrated at numerous AfD discussions, every geographic location or entity that has a name and a verified location is suitable for inclusion as a topic of an article in Wikipedia." D rew  S mith  What I've done  06:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not a policy or guideline, it's one of three options in a dormant proposal. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Further, I would argue that a street with nothing special about it is not a "place" in this sense. Hairhorn (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Zero assertion of importance or significance. Only the people who live there have the slightest interest in whether the flats are of white or yellowy-orange or orangey-yellow or what-have-you bricks. Drawn Some (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Drawn Some, how can you say that people aren't interested in white flats or flats with yellowy-orangey bricks? -- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  19:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I said only the people who live there are interested! Drawn Some (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable road like ten of thousands of others. Nothing in text indicates anything note worthy and more than one Church Road has a church on it. MilborneOne (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  --  J mundo 21:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I like articles on streets, but there seems nothing the leasst distinctive or important about this one. DGG (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. This might qualify as notable as part of an article on the A407. What standard of notability is used for A-roads? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think that this road is pretty well-known amongst drivers in north-west London, as it's part of a a useful rat run when the Harrow Road is congested, and the white flats are something of a landmark - but that's just my unverified personal knowledge so doesn't count for anything. It also has some notoriety as a rather unpleasant place (e.g. ), but I don't think this amounts to notability. As with everything else, the general principal that geographical locations are notable needs to be applied with common sense. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article seems to have good potential - I spent a few minutes, have cited several sources and have the impression that there's a lot more out there. Just seems to be a case of WP:NOEFFORT.  Worst case would be merger to a larger article such as Harlesden and so deletion is quite inappropriate.  Note that this article improvement tends to make the above opinions obsolete. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Where has the argument "Nobody's working on it" been used in this AfD? Its just not a notable road! Jenuk1985  |  Talk  13:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is an equally weak argument - see WP:JNN. I had no difficulty finding sources and so that argument is refuted.  More effort may be expected to improve the article further and this is our editing policy.  Colonel Warden (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Colonel Warden, I've lived in Brent and I've walked down this road; it is certainly not notable. It's not worth your efforts. Sure, some news sources refer to it in passing, like a cinema built 80 years ago. But there's no sources specifically about it. Now on the other hand, there is scope for an article about the area it is in, Church End. Brent council has this history of the area:. I was already planning to create it. Fences and windows (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2009 (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.