Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shattuck Avenue


 * 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The result was Withdrawn. But keep in mind that WP:BEFORE is a guideline, not policy, and that the article still needs several more additional references. Two for an article that has recently gotten a lot bigger simply isn't enough  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  14:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Modified non-admin closure on review. Franamax (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Shattuck Avenue

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:STREET guideline among others. Consensus seems to be we don't need an article even on every somewhat-busy street. Particularly when the only reference is GoogleMaps, which doesn't really count. Will throw out the life preserver, as I think there's a small chance it could be saved if more RELIABLE information on the eatery district is added  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  01:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment part of a never ending series of constructive deletion nominations by this editor targeting topics in Richmond, California and surrounding area. This is a major arterial street with a rich history and surely has lots of references. It also is home to several important and notable places. For instance the terminal to a major BRT line, a major BART station, UC Berkeley, La Pena Cultural Center, the headquarters for Power Bar, Berkeley High School, Berkeley City College, and is in and of itself a major business district in a major college town city of over 100,000 people, it is important enough to have a major subway line passing under it, with two stations, the second being Ashby BART, it also is a major hub for AC Transit and Bear Transit buses and tons of sources are out there. Taking all that into account it should be kept . The nominator himself expresses that it could possibly merit inclusion it is also the site of anti-war movements and the Marina Corps Recruiting Station scandal and hippie movements and the gourmet ghetto.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to Speedy Keep as the find sources tab clearly shows several dozens of mentions in various scholarly sources, book sources, news sources, etc.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Heaven forbid, I insist that bad articles be fixed...Article has no sources ATM, so notability cannot be established  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  02:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not the right forum to encourage an article to be improved. Notability is established per NRVE and the sources are plentiful based on the find source links. In fact I have told you repeatedly that I am more than open to editing articles and improving them. Your statements here show a serious delusion of what policy is and what it isn't. You have been told repeatedly that this is not the right way to do things.LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't, actually. Article has no sources and won't be notable until there are some  That's actually what NRVE says.  Not what you're saying  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  03:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * NRVE says the proof of sources is all that is needed, and that they don't have to be included inline or in article for them to be so. Stop lying. Numerous other editors have insisted this fact to you on several other AfDs.LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - This is not the place to "insist that bad articles be fixed" — it's a place where the inclusion-worthiness of subjects are challenged, debated, and resolved. Good articles, bad articles — it's pretty much irrelevant: the question is do reliable souces exist? Shattuck Avenue is one of the main drags of Berkeley, California and it is a little surprising that this one came up here, frankly, as I anticipate there are published histories of Berkeley and the San Francisco Bay Area that deal with the street in depth. However, there are no sources showing in the article, so the challenge is not unreasonable.(BTW: You two need to stop punching each other in the face, it's not gonna end well...) Carrite (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Here's THE DOWNTOWN BERKELEY ASSOCIATION : "The commercial life of Downtown Berkeley began in 1876 when Francis Kittredge Shattuck, one of the founding landowners of Berkeley, persuaded Southern Pacific to run a spur line through his property, terminating at what is now Berkeley Square and Shattuck Square. Rail access provided impetus for new commercial growth. When Berkeley was incorporated in 1878, Shattuck Avenue was already established as its main street at Berkeley Station...." Carrite (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And HERE IS CHAPTER 13 of a History of Berkeley, which is showing 65 hits for the word "Shattuck" on my screen. Carrite (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And here is BERKELEY: A CITY IN HISTORY, by Charles Wollenberg, with coverage of pioneer namesake Francis Kittredge Shattuck starting in chapter 1, and substantial mentions of the street and why it is important to city history in chapter 3. There are many, many more potential sources out there; the nominator would be advised to follow WP:BEFORE prior to listing a topic for deletion debate. An easy call here. Carrite (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - WP:STREET, cited by in the nomination is not a "guideline," as stated; it is an "essay" — that is, an opinion piece with no weight here in terms of policy. Carrite (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep and close - AfD is not clean up. WP:STREET is an opinion essay; not policy whatsoever. Topic notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources, not whether or not they're present in articles. Nomination doesn't provide examples of consensus regarding their statement about street notability on Wikipedia, other than WP:STREET, which is not based upon consensus. The nomination doesn't contain a valid rationale for deletion, per guidelines at WP:DEL. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:08, 6 January 2012 (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.