Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Paseo


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 09:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The Paseo

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable street. Sources only mention buildings on the street, not the street itself. Article is a huge list of trivia, and removing the trivia would leave it blank. Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * keep Whilst I have sympathy (unusually) for TPH's nomination of some of the streets he has AfD'ed, this one does appear to be a significant and notable thoroughfare.
 * As an aside, the nomination of "Sources only mention buildings on the street, not the street itself." is utter rubbish. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources. Where are they? Comment on the article not the nominator. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The article is already in quite good shape and well-demonstrates its notability. It seems that the nominator is flying blind again. Warden (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If your definition of "Good shape" is "Has only one good source and not one, but two trivia sections", I'd hate to see what you think a poor article is. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Google Books, in particular, contains a wealth of coverage for the street. I have added some sources to the article.  Gongshow  Talk 00:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:GNG and can be verified.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has plenty of sources which demonstrate its notability. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 04:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has plenty of sources to pass WP:GNG. JJ98 (Talk / Contribs)  06:43, 3 September 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.