Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most expensive streets by city


 * 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 no consensus.-- Chaser - T 10:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

List of most expensive streets by city

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No criteria for inclusion and unreferenced making it unverifiable listcruft. &mdash;Moondyne 15:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 17:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator. &mdash;Moondyne 15:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC) See changed vote below. 07:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT and WP:LIST —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alf photoman (talk • contribs) 15:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep- surley the criteria for inclusion is obvious? Astrotrain 16:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep interesting list and certainly source-able. That it needs improvement isn't a reason for deletion. The number of streets seriously considered "most expensive" in a city is going to be relatively small, and limited to large cities anyway. --W.marsh 17:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added references to a half dozen of the retail districts, just as an example. Referencing the entire list will take a huge amount of effort, but it could still be done. --W.marsh 17:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete you can't buy streets. Estimated property values are just that: estimated. Guy (Help!) 17:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well you can buy streets... but that's neither here nor there. Change the title to reflect that these are just lists someone has bothered to write an article calling the "most expensive" street in a given city, e.g. these are streets considered the most expensive. --W.marsh 17:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But many of them are *not*. Stephen Avenue in Calgary is just an extremely busy pedestrian mall - half the storefronts on it are things like falafel stands, music stores, Winners, donair houses, etc., etc. There are a few high-class shops but they're in between the law offices and Vietnamese noodle shops. If that fact is wrong (and not attributed), how about the others? -- Charlene 20:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If a source can't be found for an item on the list, the item can be removed... same as with any list or claim on Wikipedia in general. The fact that one item on a list was incorrect isn't a good reason to delete the whole thing. --W.marsh 21:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There's 106 items in the list (my rough count) and only 10 are referenced. If we start deleting the unreferenced ones the article starts to be a bit of nothing. &mdash;Moondyne 01:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Preferably people would only remove ones they think are incorrect, or try to find a source for and can't. Assume good faith and all. Again, the list could be improved. That it hasn't been yet isn't a good reason to delete. --W.marsh 01:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There are about 35 referenced now. Considering there were zero when the AfD started, I think this shows referencing can be done. --W.marsh 02:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * When this was nominated there were zero references. It has since improved and several mistakes have been fixed or removed. Changing to very weak keep as I still feel that its not particularly encyclopaedic. &mdash;Moondyne 07:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Didn't know these streets were for sale. Delete. Unsourced listcruft. -R. fiend 22:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't unsourced... and a name change has been mentioned. --W.marsh 00:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep nom says "No criteria for inclusion" although that must be clear from the title, and the fact that many of the streets have their own articles supports the implicit claim of notability, and "unverifiable"--much of this is fairly objective and well-published information. I have no problems with deleting any that isn't, but keep the article. Matchups 01:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep People refer to expensive neighborhoods, and they mean neighborhoods with expensive houses; same with streets. There are true practical criteria--the real estate ad subculture, supported by the frequent articles in newspapers. If one really wanted to get exact, there is always property tax records, an unimpeachable RS. DGG 05:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per guy: "you cant buy streets" SMBarnZy 05:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no way properly define inclusion on the list, making it totally subjective and unusable. How would it even be possible to calculate the value/price of a street? It wouldn't. Most of the sources don't even talk about streets, just about single houses. Pax:Vobiscum 08:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the Cushman & Wakefield study actually does calculate the "most expensive" street in a mathematical way, by finding the average price per square foot of space on a street, and ranking streets based on that data. Saying a street is the most expensive because it has the most expensive house/restaurant in a town is an original conclusion, and that stuff needs to go. I was careful that the sources I added actually claim a given street is the most expensive in a city. --W.marsh 14:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But using another method of counting you would get a different result. There is no accurate way to measure the expensiveness of a street. Do you count the average cost per square meter or do you just pick the street with the highest total? Are we measuring the cost of renting space or actucally buying the buildings? Do we use the total value of all the buildings on the street or take the street with the single most expensive building? Saying which street is the most expensive is subjective and totally dependent on definition and method. That is why the list should be deleted.Pax:Vobiscum 22:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not really Wikipedia's problem, publications and research groups have put these studies out under their name, Wikipedia is really just organizing that information. If their methodology is suspect, people will question them... if people wrote articles questioning the studies, we could cite that. I admit it's a fine line, but researching this I found that a lot of articles are written about "expensive streets" (I had no idea) so I think there is a great deal of interest in this, and I think the information is verifiable. It isn't our job to make sure a source is true (within reason), we aren't investigative reporters. Wikipedia just looks for verifiability. --W.marsh 23:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I think this stance makes more sense when you consider I'd like to figure out some way to communicate that items on this list are merely considered the most expensive by our sources. Another subtle line, but an important one. --W.marsh 23:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Very weak delete: I am convinced by the "keep" argument because it is reported on by sources, but I am leaning towards "delete" because there are not very strict requirements for inclusion on the list. I may live on the most expensive street in a city in central Illinois, but I certainly wouldn't put that street on the list. I may be swayed to keep if the phrasing of the article is improved upon.  Is there a certain amount of money a street must stay above to be included on the list? Are cities of a certain size only included on the list? It needs to define its criteria. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 01:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: a lot of the entries don't look correct, and the fact that they're largely unsourced make it worse. Thunderbunny 01:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are just too many big cities to make an accurate list on this topic. Not encyclopediac.--Sefringle 02:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Doesn't and shouldn't "expense" refer to the cost of renting or buying on those streets? Sources are potentially available to make this a good long list, probably meaning it would need to be broken up eventually. Noroton 23:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Going from 0 referenced to 35 referenced within 4 days shows that the article can be improved significantly (see diff).  Also, the nominator has withdrawn the nomination (albeit weakly).  Lastly, whether researchers use different techniques is not a problem we have to fix: that would be original research.  We simply report what's published.  If there are (published) disagreements about various methods, we can discuss them.  -- Black Falcon 07:30, 15 March 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.