Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir John Rogerson's Quay (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   No consensus (default keep). As for the comment the nominator directed toward DGG: bad form, mate. DGG is a librarian and a wikipedian of high regard; his input into the discussion as to the typical contents of books, is from his professional expertise. But I would also scold you for such a dismissive un uncivil tone to an IP editor with only 1 edit in his/ her contributions.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sir John Rogerson's Quay (Dublin)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - Non - notable quay Balloholic (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Prosified maps are not articles. - Mgm|(talk) 00:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge -- see my comments on the Britain Quay (Dublin) AFD. It would be useful if this stub at least said who Sir John Rogerson was.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge all Dublin Quay streets to Dublin quays per Perterkingiron. These are two major continuous streets on the north and south banks of the River Liffey that are a major integral part of Dublin history and daily life.  As common in European cities, one continuous street can have many name designations (ie Oxford Street and New Oxford Street).  Changed to Keep per sources on this individual Dublin quay found below. --Oakshade (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment/Reply - As I said, are they actually notable, how, why and where? I don't think a merge would be much use because they are not notable anyway. A Merge is only overlooking the issue and does not really sort the problem. --Balloholic (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because they are a major integral part of Dublin history and daily life. They even date back to the Viking times.   Just a 2 second g-books search found several history books chapters devoted to the Quays of Dublin .  And according to Architects Journal "The quays are among Dublin's greatest urban assets..."  Just by a Wikipedia user calling major historic significant thoroughfares in a major capitol "non notable" doesn't magically make it so.  --Oakshade (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Another quick search shows the quays are considered "famous" (something inheretnly obvious). --Oakshade (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply - Surely, but aren't they also major integral parts of the history and daily life of any place all over the world. They don't deserve articles of their own. Wikipedia is not an atlas. Prosified maps are not articles.--Balloholic (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually major historic significant thoroughfares in major capitols do deserve articles. Those are prime examples of what encyclopedias are for.  The histories, politics, geography, future plans, etc. are all what should be written about of significant places like these.  Just because a new article is only a stub with minimal information doesn't mean it should be deleted, it means it should be improved and expanded.--Oakshade (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No it should not be deleted but should it have even began. Wikipedia is not a map, nor an atlas for that matter. It would be unwise to think it necessary to create articles for every road, street or lane in Dublin - just because it is historic. Every place on this earth is historic in its own right but do they all deserve articles? Does Jim's Lane in Nilbud deserve an article because there is a church, a factory, a shoe shop, a butcher, a sex shop, an ice rink, a shopping centre or a chemist located there. I certainly don't think so. But hey, that's my opinion...--Balloholic (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to have an WP:ALLORNOTHING mentality. Well, if you believe major historic thoroughfares in major capitols shouldn't have articles just because you don't want streets in Nilbud to have articles, so be it.  For the rest of us, we judge the significance of of topics based on their specific significance, not the theoretical existence of articles on obscure topics that have nothing to do with it. (I dare you to AfD Victoria Embankment and The Embarcadero (San Francisco) for the same reasons.)  --Oakshade (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

See this rule -WP:50k. According to this Dublin should have 10 articles on its streets. The city has a population of 500000, ie, the major thoroughfares. As for All or nothing. Excuse me. No. Obviously I am not willing to delete notable streets such as O'Connell Street, Grafton Street, Henry Street, Dame Street. They are the cities major thoroughfares and they should be included in its 10 street articles. Hear me. This is just an un notable quay --Balloholic (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A small opinion essay written mostly by one user is not in any manor a "rule". If such a silly rule existed, by all means the Dublin Quays would be included in the hypothetical limited amount of Dublin street articles.  --Oakshade (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yes, it simply an essay, not a rule - but it is one that is used by a large number of editors to determine some rule-of-thumb notability in cases where there is doubt. The fact that it was mainly written by one editor (me) is largely irrelevant - the important thing is how many editors regard it as a useful guideline, and how well it seems to work as an approximation for what is or is not worthy of an article. As User:Iridescent noted here: I can confirm from experience that... [WP:50k] ...does get cited by WP:UKRD and WP:HWY all the time as a de facto policy.
 * I will add, though, that under WP:50k, Dublin would not be limited to simply 10 roads as Balloholic suggests - it would be limited to 10 that do not have any notability other than that given by their importance within the city. That is, if there are 25 inherently notable streets in Dublin, WP:50k suggests that the city should have articles on up to 35 streets - the 25 that are notable in their own right, plus the city's 10 most important streets. In this specific case, unless Sir John Rogerson's Quay is one of Dublin's ten most important streets, it needs some indication of intrinsic notability before it deserves an article. The question remains - does it have that notability? Grutness...wha?  01:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I live in Ireland and I would think that Dublin does not have even 25 notable streets.--Balloholic (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I also think that O'Connell Street, Grafton Street, Dame Street, Henry Street, Abbey Street, Talbot Street are the more major of the cities streets. They form the main arterial route in the city whereas the quays are merely backstreets/minor streets with no significance in comparison. I also do not think the quays are deserving of their own articles. They are insignificant and give no encyclopedic value. The streets mentioned above along with about three or four others are the most famous and historical of the cities streets but I think that the quays and many of the numerous other city streets are just everyday normal streets. --Balloholic (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how a major central Dublin thoroughfares on both banks of River Liffey are backstreets/minor streets.  As for passing WP:NOTABILITY, besides the significant sources mentioned above, there is extensive history and description of the Dublin quays in The Story of Dublin, published in 1907 no less.   Your opinion that the quays don't pass WP:N is noted, but is not based on reality.--Oakshade (talk) 01:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * They are biggish but not MAJOR like the streets I mentioned above. Perhaps you are not from Ireland. You may be missing my point. My opinion...But how are they notable. Is John Domino's Quay, a major thoroughfare, in the village of Cliones notable. Does a history book give a fair account. Sure I could publish a book tomorrow telling of the history of Cloines but that would only be one reference. Why is this quay so notable in its own right. Proof of notability to give us reliability.--Balloholic (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Streets can be notable for any number or reasons (see the non-major Lombard Street (San Francisco) for example). If you'd like to change WP:NOTABILITY to discount significant coverage in historic books as evidence of notability, you need to make your case on the WP:N talk page, not try to push your agenda in individual AfDs.--Oakshade (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Created Dublin quays so the conversation about the existence of that article is now off-topic here.--Oakshade (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This article does not have significant coverage or any reliable references, that is the problem. --Balloholic (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Dublin quays. --Balloholic (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The above is the most commonsense and obvious solution unless the quay can be established as notable in its own right in the same way as Eden Quay and Wood Quay have been approved as notable by me. The author of Dublin quays has solved this part of the larger problem by combining all the notable points of the quays together. This is much more effective than a line on every quay. As the cause of this discussion and now the agreer to the one article solution I think the argument is over from my point of view. However you are welcome to try me because I love you all really. Thanks. --Balloholic (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Actually, Atlases and gazetteers have traditionally been part of encyclopedias, and typically do include maps of large cities. The guideline is woefully inadequate, and I propose to increase the number 10 fold for major capitals of literary significance & historic importance. By my standard its sufficiently important & therefore notable.DGG (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's your standard. I'm sorry but no one else cares. We're too busy having sense. --Balloholic (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * DGG is one of the most respected and knowledgeable editors on Wikipedia and most care about his standards and, as addressed here, standards of encyclopedias and sense.--Oakshade (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep clearly notable. RMHED (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Negative Reply - Remember, a Google search does not prove an article's notability. --Balloholic (talk) 20:56, 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.