Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heidelberg 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. Keep per WP:HEY. Passes GNG.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith! If you disagree with this closure, please take your concerns to Deletion Review prior to my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Heidelberg Road

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

Fails WP:NGEO, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Google Maps doesn’t establish notability only that the road exists Dan arndt (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep It passes WP:GEOROAD as it is a state-level highway. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, according to WP:GEOROAD, arterial roads, such as Heidelburg Road, are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject. Dan arndt (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is an arterial road but it is signed as Victoria State Route 46. WP:GEOROAD states "International road networks (such as the International E-road network), Interstate, national, state and provincial highways are typically notable." Roads that require significant coverage are county highways, regional highways, local roads, and unsigned streets and arterials. See roads like Braddock Road (VA 620) and Sahara Avenue (NV 589), as well as other roads in the Melbourne Road navbox, which are arterial roads but are notable because they are state highways. Waddles 🗩 🖉 14:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , Heidelberg Road is not a state highway.Dan arndt (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - while it is a section of a declared Main Road (Main Heidelberg-Eltham Road), this road in itself is not part of a state highway and is otherwise un-noteworthy Lordstorm (talk) 07:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Heidelberg Road is entirely signed as a state highway (Victoria State Route 46). Waddles</b> <b style="color:white">🗩</b> <b style="color:white">🖉</b> 14:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Er, just because it's signed with a route shield does not make it a state highway: there are dozens of roads across Melbourne signed with such routes that are not state highways, some are even allocated to undeclared roads: check VicRoads' databases. Just because it has a route shield allocated to it does not automatically make it notable either: the article has little else on it currently to make it so. Isn't this why we have a Drafting process? Lordstorm (talk) 07:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A state route designation doesn't make a road a state route? <b style="color:white">Waddles</b> <b style="color:white">🗩</b> <b style="color:white">🖉</b> 17:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, they don't: a road declaration by VicRoads does. State Route shields are for navigation only, and while providing a visual aid to navigate across Melbourne, do not confer any sort of status on the road they're allocated to. National Route shields and National Highway shields do, but Heidelberg Road is not signed by one of these. Lordstorm (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Subject can be found in independent reliable sources, which also reference further reliable sources, for example:
 * https://www.victorianplaces.com.au/heidelberg
 * https://heritage.darebinlibraries.vic.gov.au/article/566
 * In depth material is available. Subject is also integral to the heritage value of many other sites. Subject is both historically and contemporaneously notable. Aoziwe (talk) 11:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, all that the first reference establishes is that Heidelberg is a notable place not that the road is notable. Dan arndt (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It does contribute contextual content for a more in depth article. Aoziwe (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This article is a stub and the refence is a mention in passing - it doesnt support the roads notability at all.Dan arndt (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe it does, so we will just have to agree to disagree. Aoziwe (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Further to keeping, more references are:
 * https://www.yarracity.vic.gov.au/-/media/files/ycc/council-meetings/2019-council-meetings/council-meeting-17-december-2019/110604--attachment-4--heidelberg-road-heritage-review-stage-1.pdf
 * http://vgls.sdp.sirsidynix.net.au/client/search/asset/1288230
 * https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/hdp.au.prod.app.ban-shapingbanyule.files/5015/4404/7951/Banyule_thematic_history_final_3.12.18.pdf
 * providing reliable in depth material. Looks to me that BEFORE was done rather poorly.  Aoziwe (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

<p class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting for further input now that WP:HEY has taken place. Please review the article as it appears now and comment on what you think the future holds for this article. Thanks everyone for your contributions and assuming good faith. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note Article is now no longer a micro stub. I suggest WP:HEY now applies.  Aoziwe (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has been substantially improved since AfD nomination.  Marc nut 1996  (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as it seems the article has been improved and meets WP:GNG. MartinWilder (talk) 03:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep I think the sourcing now present is good enough. NemesisAT (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep - changing earlier vote, enough improvement via WP:HEY to now be worth keeping. Lordstorm (talk) 13:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per others. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.