Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drummond 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.  MBisanz  talk 08:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Drummond Street, Edinburgh

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable street in Edinburgh. Prod declined on the basis that "every street in Edinburgh old town is probably notable". In that case, this is certainly one of the least notable. The article sums up this street quite well - there are about three pubs, maybe a couple of restaurants, one or two shops, the rear entrance to some university buildings, and some flats. It is more like any street in the South Side of Edinburgh, rather than the Old Town. It may merit a mention in the Flodden Wall article, which used to run along its north side, but this street is really not worthy of an article for itself. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.  —Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, as nominator. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's obvious, and unnecessary. The nomination is enough.  This is not a vote. Uncle G (talk) 11:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing about streets, especially about streets that have been around for long periods of time, is that what's on the street now is not the only thing that can be said about the street. You've shown no indication that you've actually performed the necessary research to determine whether this street is notable.  This research (per Notability, Deletion policy, Guide to deletion, Articles for deletion, and User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage) comprises looking for sources yourself. I suggest that if you want to make a case that something is non-notable, you show that you've actually done your homework and checked to see whether that really is the case, by putting in the effort of looking for sources yourself.  You might be surprised.  For starters, you'll find out what Robert Louis Stevenson was doing when he was "buying pencils" on this street. Uncle G (talk) 11:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Robert Stevenson bought pencils here? Wow, so not only are there shops there now, there used to be shops there in the past? That surely makes this street one in a million. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Uniqueness is not necessary for notability. 128.59.179.133 (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, he didn't. The fact that you don't know what he did do indicates that you still haven't done your homework and looked for sources yourself.  (It's a fact that looking for sources onesself on this subject turns up quite quickly.) Uncle G (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Nomination fails WP:BEFORE.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  15:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How can you call "SNOW" with the first "keep" vote? And how do you know the nomination fails WP:BEFORE? JohnCD (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW because I think Uncle_G's remarks in combination with DGG's edit summary in declining the PROD suffice to decide the issue; I find them irrefutable. WP:BEFORE because we're talking about |16|4&bd=useful_information&loc=GB:55.94674:-3.1849:16|EH89DW|EH8%209DW this street, just off the Royal Mile, next to the Royal College of Surgeons and the University of Edinburgh, just round the corner from the Royal Museum of Scotland and the Edinburgh Festival Theatre.  Wikipedia's notability threshold for geographical locations is low enough to include literally thousands of places with a population under 100.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  19:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's nearly as clear-cut as you make out. The street is 300 yards from the Royal mile, not "just off"; The map in Edinburgh Old Town shows it as actually running along the edge of the old town rather than being part of it - cf. nominator's reference to the wall that used to be there, and his comment that it's "more like any street in the South Side of Edinburgh, rather than the Old Town." You can make a case for notability on the basis that it's near some notable things, but that doesn't mean that anyone who disagrees hasn't done their homework. JohnCD (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No. But not finding the RLS fact that turns up quite readily when one does do that homework is a good indicator of not doing it. Uncle G (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This street has a substantial proportion of listed buildings, which are likely notable themselves. Numbers 1, 2-22, 3, 5, 27-35 and 36-37 are all class B listed buildings. JulesH (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I would think any street within an UNESCO World Heritage Site as this one is (Old Town, Edinburgh) would be considered de facto notable. Historic significance is further demonstrated by the number of Listed buildings on this street as demonstarted by JulesH. --Oakshade (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't think it follows that the presence of listed buildings on a street necessarily renders it notable, unless there is actually something to say about the street. In areas like this, whole swathes of buildings are listed - it doesn't follow that every street is notable enough for an article; and this street actually marks the edge of the Old Town, where the wall used to be, rather than being part of it. Defensive note, as the original PRODder (stung by accusations of failing WP:BEFORE, which I think themselves fail WP:AGF): I PRODded this on the basis of an internet search, which showed me a listed building but not much else; I then checked three guidebooks and the Book of Edinburgh Anecdotes without finding anything to change my mind. I can't speak for the nominator, but his username and the quote on his user page suggest a knowledge of Scottish antiquities which make it unlikely that he nominated without knowing what he was talking about. JohnCD (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, the nomination here is quite clearly based upon nothing more than what the article itself told the nominator about the subject (even though it is a stub, and, of course, by definition not exhaustive on the subject), the nominator clearly isn't aware of one of the first things that turns up when one does look for sources on this subject (and is, indeed, in some guidebooks), and even when given a hint of a phrase to look for still doesn't put in the effort and doesn't still look any further than the words in the AFD discussion, and thinks that it's about buying pencils and shops. There's a difference between assuming good faith and assuming that the nominator has done and is doing something that xe clearly isn't doing, and is supposed to do. You did it (but you obviously didn't look at the right guidebooks, or haven't found the source that makes the association explicit).  Don't let a simple quotation fool you into (a) making unfounded assumptions of expertise and (b) overlooking a clear lack of foundation for any argument as to notability.  Notability isn't based upon claims to expertise by Wikipedia editors with pseudonyms, let alone upon outright assumptions of such expertise by others.  It's based upon sources, their provenances and their depths.  Jonathan Oldenbuck clearly hasn't looked for any at all, even after it being suggested that xe do so, so any argument that xe has as to whether such sources exist cannot hold water, because it doesn't have a foundation in the requisite research necessary for finding out whether sources exist. Don't trust someone with a literary quotation on xyr user page any more than you would trust someone like me, with nothing at all on xyr user page.  You or I could add as many quotations as we liked to our user pages, and it wouldn't change a thing as to the validity of our arguments.  Don't think that it magically does so for anyone else.  (Even if you don't remember as far back as my first RFA, remember the more recent lesson of Essjay.)  What count are sources, and evidence that one has pulled one's finger out and made the effort to look for sources onesself.  The proper study of encyclopaedists is the finding, reading, evaluating, and using of sources. Uncle G (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I have to partially correct JohnCD; maybe in places like these it's not strange many listed buildings, but what count is the status applied: of the 13 on the street, 9 are class B and 4 class A, the most preeminent, and there is a pretty universal agreement that all A and B class listed buildings are notable. Also, David Bryce built here one of Edinburgh's earliest hospitals, the Edinburgh's Surgical Hospital later made the City's second Fever Hospital, and well known Doctor Joseph Lister, 1st Baron Lister worked there. I also found that "A new Royal Infirmary of 228 beds was built and opened in 1741 in Drummond Street, to be extended by a surgical wing in 1832." It was also the seat of the Department of Natural Philosophy, and, more interesting of that of Applied Mathematics, and in that department Nobel-winner Max Born had his office and laboratory.. And now, apparently , there's the Department of Geography. Probably Cassell's old and new Edinburgh, the index of which signs 5 pages, could give more, but since it's post-1870 I can't read it.--Aldux (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is quite a notable street. I have added a reference to it in the New York Times. TerriersFan (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Uncle G, S Marshall, TerriersFan, and a host of others. Let it snow! Drmies (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I would suggest that an article on a city centre street, with good citations (such as this has) should be kept. On the other hand, those on minor suburban streets are probably better mereged into an article on the district where they are.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:28, 26 March 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.