Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable addresses


 * 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 delete. Sandstein 17:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

List of notable addresses

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:NOT and WP:NOT of loosely associated topics. Potentially huge and indiscriinmate list "defined as those addresses that have their own Wikipedia article." This will have to include every single museum, hotel, art gallery, skyscraper, theater, cineplex, studio, office building, etc, etc, etc, in the world that has a Wikipedia article. At first I thought this was intended to only list Wikipedia articles that are addresses, ie 221B Baker Street and 10 Downing Street, but after clarifying this point on the talk page, it appears to be any location in the world that has an address (which is most of them). As such, this is completely indiscriminate and loosely associated (and a little bit pointless). Masaruemoto 03:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment See previous discussion under original name at Articles for deletion/List of famous addresses. FrozenPurpleCube 04:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment; I was just attempting to get that AFD to appear in a box on the right. Anyway, I wanted to address the previous AFD; no disrespect to the previous nominator, but their argument for deletion was quite weak, so based on that, the outcome was unsurprising. One of the previous arguments for keeping this mentioned that this was no different to List of famous streets, but that list itself was recently deleted. Masaruemoto 04:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And you will note that the nomination for List of famous streets was WP:NOR. Clearly that is not being claimed here and so that deletion has no relevance to this one.  Cburnett 04:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Utterly unmaintainable, indiscriminate. Resolute 03:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article has existed since Nov 2006 and it sure has bloated since then...all the way up to 6 entries!  Masuremoto, you went from a talk page discussion WHERE YOU DID NOT REPLY TO MY COMMENTS to nominating for deletion?  Holy crap dude!  Your misunderstanding on this article takes my breath away.  Every museum, hotel, art gallery, hotel (I guess there are that many that you listed it twice), skyscraper, theater, cineplex, studio, office building, etc. are all NOT KNOWN by their address.  None of them are known by their address, but people know 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.  People know 221B Baker Street.  YOUR ENTIRE DELETION NOMINATION IS ENTIRELY BASED ON A STRAW MAN.  Cburnett 04:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for now It appears be nothing more than a navigational device for articles already in Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, it does appear to refer only to addresses that are famous, rather than all famous places. bd2412  T 05:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't possible to create a list based on "famous" criteria, as some of my own afd nominations today are showing. Saikokira 05:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's clearly indiscriminate information, whether it's a few examples or a thousand. Crazysuit 05:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete -- WP:NOT#IINFO, and highly subjective criteria if this is only meant to list famous addresses. Famous in whose opinion? Saikokira 05:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Famous is no where in the article. Cburnett 23:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Try reading the comments, BD2412 suggested these were "famous". You obviously intended this list to be famous addresses though, because you named it List of famous addresses when you first created it. Saikokira 02:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I'd just like to point out that only two of the entries on the list, those mentioned by the nominator, are actually articles on the addresses, and one of them is about the building named after the address.  The rest are redirects to articles about buildings or articles about television series named after addresses. Maxamegalon2000 05:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per original research involved in determining if an address is notable. I don't think an encyclopedia should be setting the bar for which address are notable Corpx 06:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you ever read Notability? As a community, notability is set for many things.  Deleting an article because you disagree with the community is making a point.  Cburnett 23:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not sure how the nominator drew his conclusion that the criteria would allow "any location in the world that has an address", clearly this isn't supported by reading the list or its talk page.  I don't think determining notability of something is OR, really.  We have an objective definition of notable, and applying it here makes sense. JulesH 07:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Marginally useful in certain circumstances. Sjc 09:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As long it is restricted to addresses with wikipedia pages Recurring dreams 10:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is an internal linkfarm. Also, contrary to the stated premise of the list, the article is not capturing articles on fictional addresses. Surfside 6 is about the show, not the address. 77 Sunset Strip is about the show, not the address. Otto4711 14:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The rules ar: "Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles." THis appears to be a "structured list".
 * Delete, apparently everything necessary for inclusion is a redirect (which, in the case of the White House, even was a double redirect). Now redirects are cheap, and in theory I could find out the addresses for more-or-less famous buildings - say, the Élysée Palace, whose address is conveniently mentioned in the article's first line - create the redirects and include them? The fictional addresses are even worse, with only the 221B Baker Street article even discussing the address itself. Per WP:LIST, this one fails all three purposes of lists, and the Wikipedia self-referential inclusion criterion is useless. That it's unsourced doesn't help. --Huon 14:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT and the above. The fact that none of the articles linked to are about the address but rather what is at the address is key - it's not the address that is notable, but the building that resides there.  That someone decided these particular buildings have memorable and easily recognizable addresses is both subjective as well as being loosely associated. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's a list of loosely associated topic. Wouldn't even make it as a category, probably, per WP:OVERCAT. (It's not so characteristic for the White House that they have an address, right?) If somebody does not know what "10 Downing Street" is, they'd better use the full text search. --B. Wolterding 15:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this is verythe definition of an "indiscriminate collection of information".  VanTucky  (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Which definition is that? This isn't a FAQ nor news reports nor a phone book.  It's nowhere near any of those.  You say it's the VERY DEFINITION but the given examples are nowhere near this article.  Cburnett 23:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. --Storm Rider (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The criteria here do not seem likely to take in notable addresses. Looking at List of tallest buildings in New York City List of tallest buildings in Boston, for example, it appears that buildings which are not particularly famous such as 1585 Broadway 125 High Street would qualify for listing simply because they aren't known by any name other than their address. --Metropolitan90 06:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Better example replaced 1585 Broadway. --Metropolitan90 13:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. While the actual contents of the article are not too odious, it's still a very vague and subjective criteria for inclusion, as outlined above.  Lankiveil 09:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete indiscriminate, linkfarm, subjective User101010 03:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unclear and subjective inclusion criterion, and indiscriminate. If this really did list every notable address it would run into thousands. There are hundreds of notable addresses in Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by city alone, since every location with an article is notable. Magiclite 07:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for being far too subjective to manage, bordering on indiscriminate. RFerreira 01:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - While such a list potentially could be a viable topic for Wikipedia, the failure to provide any verification to the article since the first AfD on 3 November 2006 makes it unlikely that this article will ever meet Wikipedia's article standards policies. Also, per criteria for inclusion in lists, lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources. Eight months have passed since AfD#1 and such a membership criteria has not been formulated, making it unlikely that it ever will. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 09:24, 30 July 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.