Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most expensive streets by city (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

List of most expensive streets by city
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:LISTCRUFT. A majority of the entries are unsourced, and many of the references are simply for a single expensive residence at that location. The topic has certainly been discussed (Business Insider, though none of those 15 streets are in this article AFAICT), there is nothing worth keeping here. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 04:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Just remove those without sources. Based on WP:BEFORE, this is a largely discussed topic. - They may have a karate sensei, but we have an Airplane Master (talk) 05:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC).
 * Changing to Speedy Keep due to the improvements made by Edwardx and Gidonb. Airplane Master (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC) <


 * Comment - Cruft, but salvageable. The title should include "neighborhoods", and all the unsourced content needs removal.  My concern is #6 at WP:LISTCRUFT, "The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable".  Streets and neighborhoods with the highest rent or most expensive homes change quickly, and once the article is trimmed of unsourced entries it will gather dust. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep WP:LISTCRUFT is neither policy nor guideline; it's WP:CRUFTCRUFT. See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - The sources imply that something of this nature has a reasonable coverage. That being said, I do agree that the article needs to be rewritten. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of articles have little in the way of referencing - that is a not a valid basis for deletion. The topic is clearly notable.  Just delete the uncited content. Edwardx (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Just trimmed anything uncited. Some of the sources look poor, but I do not have the time. Edwardx (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Made just a few improvements. If everyone does some, we can get this in better shape. For example, images still need to be cleaned up. Kudos to Edwardx for his part and to power~enwiki for letting the discussion run its course. gidonb (talk) 08:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I just completed image and warning cleanup and some sorting. gidonb (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2020 (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.