Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Park Avenue (Dublin)


 * 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.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Park Avenue (Dublin)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - Non-notable road which only appears to be notable due to the facilities located on it. Balloholic (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Keep: Many roads are notable because of the facilities located on them, such as Oxford Street, to use an extreme example. This particular road has more going for it than many of those listed in . Per nom. (forgive my newness around these parts) Chasingsol (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes, but, take Exampletown for example. Just because Examplestreet in Exampletown has Example Shopping Centre, Example Football Pitch and Example Church...doesit make the street itself notable. Oxford Street is Europe's busiest shopping street, as well as the most dense. --Balloholic (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - is this up to WP:50k? No. Grutness...wha?  22:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep From the information given it appears notable, though sourcing should be improved. There are no numerical quotas for articles on a subject, we consider them individually. The cited essay is an essay, giving one person's view. It';s not useless to have it as some indication of the order of magnitude involved. Personally, though, I think its too stringent by at least a figure of 5, and even more so for for important cities like national capitals--particularly historic ones. The facilities along it indicate its importance as a hub for sports activities. A street is important for what is located there. DGG (talk) 10:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That leads to building "coatrack" articles. In any case, Wikipedia's criterion is notability, not importance. Uncle G (talk) 06:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I should have said, for what's on it, among other things, such as events there, and literary use. You know, the guideline does not explain the difference: My own view is that everything important is notable, and a good many things that aren't actually important, but have some significance in the world none the less. DGG (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We had a whole poll explaining the difference, at Notability/Historical/Fame and importance. Notability is not fame and importance.  Notable things can be unimportant to most of the world, and important things can be completely non-notable.  See User:Uncle G/On notability. Uncle G (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply - How is it notable? Is every street in every town, village or city in the world notable because it has buildings on it. Is a street notable because there is a football pitch or a church on it. If that were the case then there would be a large volume of articles created just for that reason. What makes this street more interesting than the rest and makes it more deserving of an article. --Balloholic (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NOTABILITY which explains that the concept is based upon whether the subject has been noticed by other writers. Your personal views on the subject's importance, interest or deserving nature are quite irrelevant to this. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * DGG is taking the article on trust. Heeding the warning at Risk disclaimer, I'm not.  Looking for sources to confirm anything in this article, I find that the cricket grounds that are supposedly on Park Avenue are (according to their own WWW site, at least) in fact on .  So pseudo-notability, based upon the article's claims, seems to fall at the very first checking the information out fence.  I have found no evidence of real notability.  Unlike several of the other Dublin streets nominated for deletion by this editor, I find, upon looking for sources to establish notability &mdash; as we are all supposed to be doing here, remember?  Not guessing according to what the article claims about how important the subject is. &mdash; that there aren't any sources that document this street in depth.  Indeed, as mentioned, I cannot even find sources that confirm even the current content.  If there's something documenting a "Church of St John" on this road, it's not in any book, newspaper article, or WWW page that I can find.  There are no in-depth sources on this subject to be had.  The Primary Notability Criterion is not satisifed.  Delete. Uncle G (talk) 06:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added a selection of 8 sources covering the geography, history and contemporary interest in this place. It seems to be the most fashionable and sought-after address in all of Ireland and the value of its property can measured in billions.  As for the sports grounds, there seem to be several.  The Pembroke Cricket Club shares its grounds with a rugby club and they are certainly located here. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I still suggest more needs to be done. More sources (preferrably some genuine online ones too) and the like. Perhaps the best solution would be a list of Park Avenues with a redirect from this page. --Balloholic (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You've done a bit of reaching. Your sources:
 * de Courcy (two of your sources) is actually documenting the Liffey, and mentions this road entirely tangentially, in passing, as the modern street address of one erstwhile part of the river.
 * Gifford and Seidman are actually talking about the Sisters of Charity, and again mention this road entirely tangentially, in passing, as a street address, saying nothing at all about the road.
 * Blacker is actually talking about the Convent of the Immaculate Conception, and like Gifford and Seidman give this road name merely as a street address, without saying anything at all about the road.
 * The Mirror is actually documenting house prices in Dublin 4, and mentions this road merely as a street address of one of the houses in Dublin 4 that was sold for a large amount of money, again without saying anything at all about the road.
 * The Irish Times is discussing the same house, and another one, again only mentioning the road as the street address of both.
 * Somerville-Large actually says "in the neighbourhood of Sandymount and Park Avenue", and by trying to shoe-horn this into an article about this road you have actually misrepresented the source.
 * Google doesn't let me read "Studies", but the content that you've based upon it isn't about the road.
 * As I said, there are no in-depth sources documenting this road. All of your sources actually document other subjects, and mention this subject as a street address, without documenting anything at all about it.  Creating an article about a road simply from a list of sources that only mention it as a street address doesn't make an encyclopaedia article, any more than collecting mentions of a subject in popular culture does. Uncle G (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * An article does not have to be greater than the sum of its parts. In any case, the Irish Times article is entitled "Light and bright on Park Avenue" and starts "Park Avenue in Sandymount hit the headlines earlier this year."  The Irish Times is the premier journal of record in Ireland and here we have it headlining this avenue more than once.  So, we have both direct references and numerous incidental mentions.  And this is just what I have added in some idle moments using the keyhole views afforded by Google.  From what I've seen, I would expect to have little difficulty writing a book about this place, should I want to, and our editing policy explicitly encourages us to develop articles in this way.  Moreover, since the address alone is certainly notable, the article title should be retained for search purposes and deletion would therefore be unhelpful to our readers, as compared with merger or redirection. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete I do not know Dublin, but the description makes me think this is more of a neighbourhood article than just one on a street. Or can we merge some of the content to an article on the neighbourhood?  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The road runs from Sandymount to Ballsbridge. These are the best areas of Dublin - something like the Upper East Side of Manhattan.  The road is thus the Irish equivalent of NY's Park Avenue, as the article says.  Should we delete it because it is Irish rather than American? Colonel Warden (talk) 15:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, we should delete it because Dublin is not and never will be New York. That is a blooming ridiculous comparison. It runs between two areas. The two areas get their own articles. But a road which just runs between and has nothing else important to say for itself? Fair enough if such a road in Wexford or Castlebar or Tralee gets its own article but I'm not buying it at all. --Balloholic (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I notice it is the same editors who want all the streets kept yet cannot give valid arguments and seem to just be in love with keeping each street as it is. That is extreme inclusionism of the type that should be outlawed. --Balloholic (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Mound, Louisiana - an inconsequential place of just 3 households. Or Articles for deletion/Walnut Street (Philadelphia) - another grand street in a major city.  Both were overwhelmingly kept.  It is knee-jerk deletionism which should be outlawed as itdrives away productive editors, is contrary to policy and interferes with our editing. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Mound, Louisiana is a village not a street or road. Settlement acknowledged by U.S. Census Bureau. Walnut Street (Philadelphia) - "another grand street in a major city". A grand street it may be. This one is not. A major city. Dublin is the capital of Ireland but calling it a major city is something else. This is a minor avenue of no real encyclopedic purpose. Do not compare Philadelphia to Dublin. Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Don't add sewage to the already polluted pond. --Balloholic (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep citations show that the subject meets the GNG. RMHED (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply - How exactly does it do this. Explain yourself. Your vote is not valid if you don't give a proper explanation.--Balloholic (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The numerous citations show it meets the GNG. This isn't a vote, and you don't get to decide what opinion is valid. RMHED (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Reply - Of course it's a vote. You suggested "keep". Was that just inserted by accident or did you mean to type it in. F.Y.I., I know I don't decide what opinion is valid, I was just giving you a bit of advice my dear friend. --Balloholic (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Listen, it may resemble a vote but for whatever reason we're not supposed to acknowledge that it is essentially a vote. We are all just expressing our opinions. RMHED (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okey Doke...I just hope you understand my comments above. Thanks --Balloholic (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2008 (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.