Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soto 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. Sources have been found and added to the article during the course of the discussion. There is now a clear consensus that the sources are sufficient to establish notability. Because of those sources and the support they have had in the keep !votes, it is quite clear that the community supports the retention of this article on grounds other than just the Gmaps reason, which was (quite reasonably) called into question during the AfD. Two delete !voters question the significance of the coverage found in the sources, but the consensus is to the contrary. Mkativerata (talk) 02:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Soto Street

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I cannot seem to find any reliable sources on this street to establish notability. The article is entirely unsourced, and the search I did brought up maps, directories, real estate listings, and the like. Whose Your Guy (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 *  Weak k Keep. A case might be made for Soto Street as is a historically important artery in East L.A. Sourcing is hard, though.  As a starter, here's a 2000 L.A.Times article entitled "Heart of the Eastside: Corner of Cesar Chavez and Soto--a Landmark in History of 2 Cultures"   Soto also has a somewhat notable bridge over the L.A. River and the immense Los Angeles County – USC Medical Center as a landmark. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Since notability is not inherited, having landmarks on the street doesn't make the street itself notable. It has to stand on its own, and I just don't see that with the sources I looked at.  Whose Your Guy (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete (Changing to Keep, see below) The article doesn't even claim notability, much less demonstrate it. I went looking at Google and Google Books, because it does seem like it is a significant street in Los Angeles, but I could find nothing to establish it as historic or notable. --MelanieN (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

So, next time you want to repeat a ridiculous rhetorical question a few times to make a point, consider that I actually investigated more than you thought, and that I still don't see enough. I'm not the only one either. Shadowjams (talk) 09:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC) scope_creep (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Indicated in yellow in GMaps, as more significant than the ordinary street (I note that this applies to only about 1% of the streeets in the area. Top 1% is a reasonable standard.    DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting standard! Does being "indicated in yellow" satisfy WP:GNG? Is GMaps a reliable source? I wish I had thought of that argument when I was fighting to save the listings of some notable, historic streets in my town! The consensus of the folks from the streets and highways projects seemed to be a lot stricter than that. I wish we could find some sources for it being historic, that would be a far more valid argument for "keep". --MelanieN (talk) 04:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, would this and this and this give it some historic clout? They are articles from the Los Angeles Times, from 1927 for heavens sake, announcing the city council's decision to pave Soto Street as an "artery". Seems to have been big news back then. --MelanieN (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Another possible source found at Google Books: Los Angeles's Boyle Heights, with authorship credited to the Japanese American National Museum, ISBN 9780738530154. (The acknowledgements page says this book is directly adapted from a 2002-2003 exhibition at the museum.)  It has a number of references to Soto Street, documenting its evolution as the population of Boyle Heights shifted from Midwesterners to Jews to Latinos.   Also, in addition to the L.A. Times article I mentioned above, there are plenty of other sources documenting the particular importance of the Soto & Brooklyn intersection (now Soto & Cesar Chavez Avenue) as the heart of East L.A.  Finally, at the risk of having someone cite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I'd argue that Soto is at least as significant as many other Los Angeles streets that have articles, and that this article is an integral part of the existing, well-documented encyclopedic treatment of Los Angeles' famous street system. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - There're no citations in the article which is telling. A pretty quick, book search doesn't reveal anything particularly compelling to suggest this street is anything more important than most major thoroughfares in most major cities. We need some WP:RS, which seems to be solely lacking. Shadowjams (talk) 06:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What's telling, sadly, is that source citations were directly above you when you wrote that rationale. You ignored them.  How much weight should the closing administrator give to such a rationale when it doesn't even address the preceding discussion, do you think? Uncle G (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Timestamps matter. I'll quote myself. At 6:31 "there're no citations in the article". "A pretty quick book search doesn't reveal anything particularly compelling." . I'm not sure if you think it's clever that you "caught me" because somebody put some, again, not very compelling links above, or it's clever that somebody added the citations to the article after the fact, but in both cases my original opinion's still relevant. Shadowjams (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The above sources were cited at 04:50 and 05:33. You ignored them.  And now you're trying to squirm out of this with the excuse that they "weren't in the article", when instead they were right in front of you in the very discussion you were editing.  You're not even addressing them yet.  Again, what weight should a closing administrator give to such continued failure to address things presented directly in front of one, even when that's been pointed out, do you think?  Uncle G (talk) 03:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder if I quote myself a third time if you'll actually read what I wrote. If I'm "squirming" then I'm clairvoyant too because I had the presence of mind to "squirm" before you leveled your first remark. But here, I'll do the insane line-by-line you want: 2000 LA times article isn't about the street and mentions it once; the 3 articles from 1927 are behind a paywall but both of those talk about a new road going in and it being paved; I can find any local newspaper that discusses most new roads going in. Because they're behind a paywall, did you actually read those? What weight should a closing administrator give in that case? The artery line's the best hope in there, but that's weak. The book link barely mentions the street, and has photos taken on it. Ironically that book quotes the 2000 LA times article, so same reason there.
 * Comment. I've added some of the sources mentioned in this AfD to the article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete it because being in yellow on a google map is not an good arguement to keep it. 207.81.170.99 (talk) 07:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete 'It's yellow on the map' has to rank up there among the most absurd reasons to keep anything I've heard yet. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, how much weight should the closing administrator give to a rationale that addresses another rationale some way up the AFD discussion, but not all of the meaty points in between that rationale and this one, that point to sources to be evaluated and discussed? Uncle G (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I absolutely support attempts to find sources as much more useful than making downright silly comments like what colour it is on a map. But it being repaved in 1929(!) and crossing a potentially major intersection just isn't enough for me. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Changing my !vote to Keep based on the additional material added by Arxiloxos, which clearly indicates the street's historic importance and notability. Thanks, Arxiloxos; I had a feeling this street was significant in the history of Los Angeles, and the article now proves it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep if it is similar to manner to Brick Lane in that it hosted a number of different ethnic groups through the ages, then will be noteworthy.
 * comment Yes, i consider G Maps a RS, including their classification of roads. Might be worth a discussion.   DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It may have been discussed already; see Notability (streets, roads, and highways). --MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Strong Keep - per the reliable citations added by Arxiloxos. This is a very notable street in the Boyle Heights neighborhood of Los Angeles. Stretching from one side of the city to Huntington Park, it is a major artery that parallels I-110 (CA) and Interstate 710 and is the most likely the most traveled thoroughfare that links the same communities served by those freeways. moreno oso (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per the added references.  Nole  lover  01:23, 2 September 2010 (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.