Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecclesall Road


 * 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 due to sources added since beginning of AfD. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 01:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ecclesall Road

 * — (View AfD)

Contested prod. It's a long road, not a highway, nor a village. See Articles for deletion/Precedents. No WP:V sources about the road (not just mentioning it in passing as the address of some shop or so) look to be available. Fram 06:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Can't find sources, article does not assert the subject's notability.  Ultra-Loser [ T  ] [  C  ]  11:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. MER-C 11:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ecclesall Road is one of the first roads people (students maybe) know when arriving in Sheffield to live, and it is a well-known shopping area.  My girlfriend will often go there to shop, and many friend will head there for it's shops or the pool lounge.  Saying "Ecclesall Road shops" would be like talking of the "London Road restaurants" or "Crystal Peaks Shopping Centre".  It certainly has the same retail area as Crystal Peaks!  In addition, it is a former toll road, as mentioned in the article itself and Hunter's Bar, and it is a major arterial route into the city.   L.J.Skinner WOT?|CONTRIBS 13:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Edison 15:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge with A625 road - enough incoming links to be notable. --Henrygb 20:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia itself can not be used to determine notability, and most of the links just say 'it intersects Ecclesall Road', 'It is bordered by Ecclesall road', 'this rural road is a continuation of Ecclesall road', ... Fram 21:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete it's a road with shops, restaurants, public transport and houses nearby that has existed more than a hundred years. All nice, but not notable. Nuttah68 21:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable as is, keep, perhaps also list in the relevant watch list for more rigourous debate -- Librarianofages 22:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Lack of verifiability is not sufficient reason to delete this article—it is a road, its existence can be verified quite simply by looking at a map. The article is currently uncited, but that is only reason to request a cleanup, not reason for deletion. I'm fairly sure that I could find sources for most of the facts in the article. This road is a major arterial road in one of Britain's larger cities—whether that alone makes it notable enough for its own article is a matter of opinion; I would tend to think not, but then there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia about things that I would regard as much less notable, so my bar of notability may be too high. Merging with A625 road seems like a good option that should be considered. —JeremyA 01:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment see Verifiability. First line -The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability-. Nuttah68 18:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have to disagree with the start of your opinion: lack of verifiability is the main reason why articles should get deleted, and if nothing beyond it's existence and trivial mentions can be sourced, then we have to delete it. However, if the problem for the notable parts (whichever they may be, having shops is not really one of them) is not lack of verifiability but lack of verification, then the situation may change. User talk:Captain scarlet seems to think that sourcing should be easy, so I suppose that can be done before the end of this AfD. Otherwise, it are only claims that it can be done, and then the article can better be recreated once anyone actually has those sources... Fram 06:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply. Please re-read what I said above. I know that lack of verifiability is a reason for article deletion. My argument is that lack of verifiability is not a good reason for deleting this article as most, if not all, of the information contained within this article is clearly verifiable. —JeremyA 18:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. It needs a lot of work, but there is a lot of notability about this road, including a lot more historical stuff that could added. Deletion is not the answer. Cleaning and sources are. If merge is the conclusion, also merge in Hathersage Road (Sheffield), another part of the A625. --Bduke 02:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 05:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It is one of the primary roads in Sheffield, not just a little street. --Oakshade 07:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, tag for clean-up Notability is established. That there are no sources currently cited is not a reason to delete. Only if, after research, no sources actually exist to cite should we delete.Eludium-q36 18:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keeep but verify as soon as possible. Regan123 16:38, 14 January 2007 (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.