Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rue Rachel


 * 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. That has to be one of the longest uninterrupted two-user debates I've ever seen on Wikipedia.  A  Train talk 09:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Rue Rachel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreferenced article about a city street, with no indication of anything that would satisfy WP:ROADOUTCOMES. All this contains is a description of the road's physical characteristics, a list of buildings that happen to be on it, and a brief biographical sketch of the person that it happens to have been named for (an otherwise non-notable daughter of the person who previously owned the land it's located on.) Every road in every city is not automatically eligible to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- but there's no indication of any political, social or historical context that would make its existence noteworthy, and no evidence of any strong reliable source coverage about the road. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - It is does seem to be a historic street dating back to the 1830s, is somewhat noteworthy as a visitor destination and described as, "was one of the major commercial thoroughfares of the Plateau". --Oakshade (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We need much better sourcing for a claim like that than just a Fodor's tourist guide (which is prone to just repeating marketing claims that may not actually be accurate.) Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG or WP:RS makes no discrimination against "tourist guides" as long as there is editorial control over content as is the case with Fodor's which has a long reputation of fact-checking. There does need to be proof of "repeating marketing claims," otherwise that's just an ironic claim.  I don't see how a place having been a major commercial thoroughfare in the past and not presently is a "marketing claim" anyway.--Oakshade (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Come see our district! It has history! (Don't ask us to actually back that up with documented proof, though, and never mind that "has stores on it" isn't actually an encyclopedic notability claim in and of itself...just take our word for it!)" Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a straw man argument as the source doesn't say anything like that and is independent of the topic. I'm also independent of the topic and have no relation to it whatsoever. --Oakshade (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, do go ahead and enlighten me as to where there's a difference between being a neighbourhood's commercial thoroughfare and being a neighbourhood street that had stores on it — because that difference certainly isn't found in what any of the words mean. And then find me some sources that actually substantiate its significance as a neighbourhood commercial street rather than just glancingly asserting it, which is the real point here. Bearcat (talk) 03:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You were claiming that Fodor's was somehow the actual neighborhood promoting itself, but providing no evidence to that claim. And then to demand that the reliable source provide another reliable source is just silly game playing.--Oakshade (talk) 04:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I was not; I was claiming (correctly) that Fodor's was not necessarily going to research or fact-check a PR claim handed to it by the neighbourhood BIA or tourist office. Regardless, the basis for handing it wikinotability as a commercial district would not be just a contemporary Fodor's travel guide simply asserting the fact in a glancing fashion in a source not otherwise about the street itself, but substantive coverage in a variety of sources about its noteworthiness as a commercial district, which hasn't been shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you can provide any evidence that the long reputable couple Fodor's didn't do any research and simply repeated a "PR claim", then we'll talk. Otherwise you're only providing blind original research speculation.  And I'll repeat, we don't understand how some undefined local organization touting a past accolade and not the present is somehow "PR." If you'd like more sources, fine.  But your Fodor's-is-lying claim with no evidence whatsoever is ignorable. --Oakshade (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not my responsibility to prove a negative — it's your responsibility to prove the affirmative. And at any rate, what we're talking about is one glancing namecheck of a purported historical status not confirmed by multiple reliable sources, when passing WP:GNG requires multiple sources (not just one) to address the topic in depth (not just namechecking its existence). So regardless of which one of us is right or wrong about whether Fodor's independently researched the claim or just regurgitated a press release, we still require more than just one source before we can consider the street notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The "affirmative" has been provided and you're just blindly claiming it's a "PR Claim" with zero evidence. You need to prove that.  I noticed the same source also says the area is now "more run down."  How is it a "PR Claim" to be "run down"? --Oakshade (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you haven't "proven" the affirmative; you've simply asserted that I'm wrong, which isn't the same thing. And we still need more than just one source to deem this notable — regardless of who's right or wrong about how Fodor's did or didn't assess the claim's publishability, it still takes more than just one source to make a street notable enough for inclusion. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The reliable source regarding the past importance of this topic has been provided - the "affirmative." That's not just "asserting" you're wrong.  You've been repeatedly claiming that source is a "PR claim" by some un-named entity but providing zero evidence for your claim.  And how is the source calling a topic "run down" a "PR claim"? --Oakshade (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A tourist guide making an assertion without showing evidence of that != proof. If it had half the historic importance as a commercial district as you seem so sure it does, that would track in other sources as well — such as the archives of the Montreal Gazette — but it completely fails to do so at all. (P.S. if I wasn't clear enough about this before, I checked.) And we still require more than just one source to deem a street notable. Bearcat (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, you're just demanding that a reliable source supply its own reliable source. That's just you.  The New York Times references Fodor's all the time.  If it's good enough for the NYT, it's good enough for us.  Well most us, but not you.  Fine. And we're still waiting for your answer; how does the source saying the topic is "run down" a repeated "PR claim"? --Oakshade (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I never said that "has become run down" was a PR claim; I have no responsibility to answer for words that you're putting in my mouth. And we're also still waiting for your response to the fact that Wikipedia requires multiple reliable sources, not just one, before we can deem a topic notable enough to have an article. WP:GNG requires substantive coverage in multiple reliable sources, not just one half-page blurb in one tourist guide. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You claimed that when Fodor's stated ""was one of the major commercial thoroughfares of the Plateau" it was a "PR claim handed to it by the neighbourhood BIA or tourist office" with zero evidence. Fodor's also states in the same paragraph that the street is "run down."  How is Fodor's making a "PR claim handed to it by the neighbourhood BIA or tourist office" when they also state it's "run down"?--Oakshade (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is entirely possible for Fodor's to take one piece of information from a piece of PR bumf, and combine it with other information gleaned from its own personal observations rather than the PR, within the same piece of writing — so saying that one part of the blurb sounds more like PR bumf than properly substantiated evidence of notability is not disproven by some other part of the blurb that I did not apply that judgement to. There is no evidence that Fodor's dug into decades-old newspaper archives to research whether it had any historic significance as a commercial thoroughfare — which is still not the same thing as "had stores on it". And Wikipedia still requires multiple sources, not just one — a point which you still seem reluctant or unable to address. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A single anonymous Wikipedia user making a "It is entirely possible" "PR claim" charge holds no weight against a reliable source. Demanding a reliable source provide another reliable source to their content is just silly grabbing at straws.  If this article is deleted, it will probably be because of the request for more in-depth coverage by more sources, not your groundless claim that a reliable source is, well I guess you mean sometimes since you're now contradicting yourself, repeating a "PR claim."--Oakshade (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Pfffft. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Unsourced and unremarkable street. No indication of notability. MB 03:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947(c) (m) 03:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are several notable historic sites on this street, perhaps enough to warrant a short list, however there really isn't any reason to keep an article on a street unless its something like Oxford Street. A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver  13:33, 28 September 2017 (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.