Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peel Street


 * 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. 山本一郎 (会話) 04:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Peel Street

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

There is no reason to believe that the content is worthy of notice. There might be many different Peel streets other than this one. Jpdemers (talk) 06:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No comment on notability as I don't really understand the criteria involved in road notability or really follow typical outcomes, but I think a good argument exists for this to be moved, if kept, to something like Peel Street (Hong Kong) and a disambiguation created because this search terms up a number of similarities including Roads and towns. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 06:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's part of the template, it's got pretty pictures, why not? —TreasuryTag talk  contribs  08:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable other than its namesake. - Jahnx ( talk ) 09:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable, and Wikipedia is not a guidebook. JohnCD (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete.--andreasegde (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. All I'll say is that Wikipedia is certainly not a travel guide - that's why Wikitravel exists. (I raised this question before, and I'll ask again here - what is the deal with transwiki to non-Wikimedia Foundation websites like Wikitravel? Does it matter to Wikipedia editors whether the content is transferred since it's not helping to construct a part of a Wikimedia project?) I agree with the keep voter that the pictures are kind of interesting, but Wikipedia is also certainly not the Wikimedia Commons or any kind of image gallery. Unless reliable sources (preferably book sources) covering this street are added, I'd be more inclined towards a delete.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 14:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article about a major street in the centre of a capital city (IMO, inherently notable). Plenty of online sources. Scope for history, culture and famous things on this street (eateries and food market). --Oldak Quill 20:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - this link comments on the Unusual charactor of the street, which would lend credence to its notability. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  04:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  -- Luke! (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - The street is historical rich. It is part of early street markets in Hong Kong.  It come to more attention when Urban Renewal Council started a re-development project around Peel Street and Graham Street. source There is an indigenous temple in the middle of the street that is the heritage of early Chinese population in the area. --&mdash; HenryLi (Talk) 11:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is in Central, one of the first areas developed in the territory. It has a deep history like Henry suggested above.  Whether we get to it anytime soon, probably not.  But worth keeping. Benjwong (talk) 04:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm going to trust that given the history of the area, there will be sources to prove notability. EJF (talk) 17:23, 13 March 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.