Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevelyan 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 05:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Trevelyan Street

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Quite simply, this fails WP:GNG. This has been draftified several times now and rejected several times at AfC without any sign of actual improvement to meet notability requirements.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC) Note: this article's content previously existed at Draft:Trevelyan St, and this street is only 700 m long in Elsternwick, Victoria, a suburb of Melbourne with a population of just under 11,000 people.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Imzadi,
 * I understand the article was rejected many times, but I believe it doesn't lack sufficient notability. There are a number of sources on the page, each from a different reliable source, and many of whom covering significant detail of the street. Each time the article is rejected I continue to add more sources and improve the article in a way to highlight its importance, both architecturally and residentially. The important features of WP:GNG are that it must have reliable sources(The real-estate sources listed must be reliable as they deal with a very important industry), have significant coverage(The sources explain the location, map, details, homes, architecture), must be secondary(the sources are created by those who neither live on the street nor are particularly connected to it) and independent(they are completely seperate from me, the author of the article).
 * Additionally, Glen Huntly Road, a place very close to Trevelyan Street, has its own Wikipedia listing, so there is precedent for this.
 * I hope you will take these factors into account, and you will reconsider your decision to delete the article.
 * Regards,
 * Toby Toby3141 (talk) 05:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC) — Toby3141 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a reason for keeping. Plus Glen Huntly Road is now up for deletion too. LibStar (talk) 06:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia.  Imzadi 1979   →   05:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete pending a check of sources. This article does not speak for itself and does not explain why the street is notable.  The article also lacks a proper lede sentence that says that the street is in Melbourne, Australia.  A reader should not have to look at the sources to know where a geographic feature is.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have edited the page to include 'Melbourne, Australia', so now readers immediately know where the geographic feature is. As for the article speaking for itself, I believe the article does explain its notability as it talks about the architectural significance of the street. If the article needs to elaborate on the residential notability, please let me know and I will add it to the article.
 * I would like to once again touch on the similar article, Glen Huntly Road. Not only does it not speak for itself in a notability sense, but the sources listed are completely different from the Notability guidelines that my article is being deleted for. The sources are not specific at all, and some are lists which simply include Glen Huntly Road. They certainly don't cover a wide range of the road(there are only 6), and their reliability is not obvious. If Glen Huntly Road can be listed as an article, it should be clear that Trevelyan Street can be too.
 * Regards,
 * Toby Toby3141 (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete This street is not notable in any way. Nothing notable happened here. It is just a local residential street. Steelkamp (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand that the article simply depicts a residential street, but this certainly doesn't dismiss it's notability. Hundreds of people call Trevelyan Street their home, and it is extremely important to the thousands of citizens who visit and use this street regularly. Trevelyan Street has created memories to so many people, and is the home to so many stories. The argument that 'Trevelyan Street is simply a local residential street' doesn't justify at all why it should be deleted.
 * Once again, I call attention to Glen Huntly Road. In the article, no notable events are depicted. But it is still important and notable in other ways. This is because of the importance Glen Huntly Road has on so many Melbournians. Glen Huntly Road isn't the place where an enormous event happened, nor is it something particularly noteworthy, but it is worth a Wikipedia page.
 * I'd encourage you to see both sides in your arguments, to understand that this article means something to a lot of people. It is their home.
 * Regards,
 * Toby Toby3141 (talk) 07:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding the other road, you're using an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. LibStar (talk) 09:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Creating memories doesn't equal notability in Wikipedia. We aren't here to help people feel good about things. We need critical discussions about the street in reliable sources, we don't have that. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails on any claim to WP:GNG. Contains WP:OR. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete The sources in the article either do not discuss the street at all, or are from database/user generated sources which are not reliable. Fails WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, could not find any sourcing that makes this road more notable than the standard residential road. Jumpytoo Talk 08:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I urge the readers of this debate to understand that just because this is a residential road, it doesn't need to be dismissed from Wikipedia, due to its importance to the hundreds of residents who call this street home. I also call you to further discuss the argument around Glen Huntly Road. Toby3141 (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "due to its importance to the hundreds of residents who call this street home." Is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 09:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: For notability requirements please see Notability (geographic features) where enquiring minds can establish that this street cannot pass. WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid argument. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly fails WP:GEOROAD. The arguments put for keep are very weak. LibStar (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It is extremely subjective as to whether or not an article is notable enough, and different reviewers could form different opinions. So I ask you to consider the other possibility; that Trevelyan Street might actually be notable enough for inclusion. Consider the arguments I have put forth, about architectural notability, residential notability, the notability which the sources bring, the similar notability of Glen Huntly Road, the geographical notability, and finally the emotional notability to all of the streets' residents. I have given a range of reasons as to why this street is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, and the justification for your responses doesn't exactly touch on these specific arguments: they are simply referring to how the street isn't notable enough. So in your justifications, it would be amazing if you could be more specific, so I can make the right edits and better the article itself. Toby3141 (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTAPOLICY
 * Toby3141 (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you a resident of this street? "emotional notability to all of the streets' residents" is irrelevant and not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 11:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW delete This idea that a generic residential block like any of the thousands of others in Melbourne and other cities – with this lack of significant coverage – is notable is ridiculous. Reywas92Talk 14:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete if it is "architecturally significant" as the lead suggests, we could redirect to Architecture of Melbourne. I don't find sourcing supporting that argument, nor much of anything for this street. Oaktree b (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Snow Delete per WP:MILL, WP:INDISCRIMINATE; this was rejected on grounds of notability and sourcing several times at AfC, and I have not found any compelling sources to establish notability. LittlePuppers (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Despite the obvious temptation to Snow Close this discussion, we lose nothing by allowing it to run for the full duration. By doing so we allow the community to make a fuller judgement. I had been in favour of a snow close, but have changed my mind. Let us give the creating editor and their article a full hearing. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank You!
 * Just as we lose nothing continuing this hearing, we also lose nothing by keeping this article. The article does nothing but provide information about an important and architecturally significant street to the public. Might I remind you that this is not a discussion to turn a draft into an article, but rather to take an article down from the millions of others because it should be deleted. Trevelyan Street is not hindering Wikipedia in any way. It is bringing information and knowledge to the people, and taking it down almost means that Wikipedia would be 'better off' without it.
 * Regards,
 * Toby Toby3141 (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you a resident of this street? LibStar (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Also WP:NOHARM is not a reason for keeping. Wikipedia does not contain information on everything and every street in the world. LibStar (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not directly using WP:NOHARM as a direct reason to keep my article. I believe the article is more than just something that "doesn't do anything wrong".
 * I quote from the wikipedia about page, "Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by containing information on all branches of knowledge."
 * In adherence to Wikipedia's foundational goal, this platform serves as a repository of human history, culture, and progress. It is a tapestry woven with threads of knowledge, and every piece, no matter how seemingly insignificant, has a role in preserving our world's diversity.
 * To dismiss this article on the grounds of "harmlessness" would be to undermine the very spirit of inclusivity and enlightenment that Wikipedia upholds. Our commitment should extend beyond the immediate concept of harm and focus on the broader concept of value. Does the article contribute to the collective tapestry of human understanding? Does it offer a glimpse into the microcosm of our society that might otherwise remain obscured? The answer, I posit, is an emphatic yes.
 * Regards,
 * Toby Toby3141 (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you a resident of this street? LibStar (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No, but I have access to it, giving me the ability to gather primary and secondary research. Toby3141 (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete and Request a SNOW close. Looking at, the references don't support anything the article is saying. Refs 1, 6, and 7 are neighborhood realty pages, they don't tell us anything about the street, in fact they say less than a street map would. Ref 2 doesn't mention Trevelyan Street, so it doesn't support that those types of houses are on that street.  Refs 3 and 4 are unnecessary because they're supporting a wikilink when we could just click that wikilink instead.  Ref 5 doesn't support that there is a Tudor house on Trevelyan Street.  Ref 8 doesn't support the claim that the two streets run parallel, quite the opposite! Ref 9 doesn't support anything about this "notable tree", or any specific tree.  Ref 10 is a Wix fan page.  Ref 11 is a Google Map, the one reference I don't have a problem with here; it indeed shows it's in Melbourne.  Honestly, the article could be pared down to "Trevelyan Street is a residential street in Melbourne," and cited to Ref 11, but I think deletion is the better choice here. –Fredddie™ 05:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Fredddie,
 * You make some reasonable arguments about how individually, all of my sources lack a certain aspect. But I believe that together, they contain all of the information and research used in my article. All together they manage to explain the location, details, architectural features(of Melbourne), Geographical features, statistics(number of homes, ratio of bought to rented homes, ratio of homes to units to townhouses and time spent living on the street). I believe the statement that a street map would say more than the realty pages is false, especially with the 'domain' link, which, along with providing a map, also provides a significant amount of statistics on the street. About Kooyong Rd, I have edited the article to say 'perpendicular' rather than 'parallel', thank you for letting me know about this error. I have removed sources 2,3 and 4, as I understand they more appropriate as wikilinks. The significant tree is supported in both google maps(street view/satellite view), and in the image conveniently included.
 * If more sources are necessary which reference the other elements I mention in this article, I would be happy to either provide them or remove their mentioning. I would also like to thank you for being specific in your reasoning, as this allows me to know what I need to do to improve my article and my articles in the future. Please let me know if any further edits are needed to keep Trevelyan Street an article.
 * Regards,
 * Toby Toby3141 (talk) 07:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You should really try editing a wide range of articles to get a better idea of what meets notability rather than focusing on 1 article. Secondly, I've also nominated Glen Huntly Road which has questionable notability. LibStar (talk) 07:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice, I might consider creating and editing more articles to become better at showing why things are notable. I would also like to note that residential streets like Trevelyan Street are actually allowed and even automatically considered notable by WP:GEOROAD, which states that "Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland's regional roads), local roads, streets and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject."
 * Any argument that the street is not notable simply because it is a residential street is by default false, and so anyone arguing against its notability must target the sources themselves. This passage shows that there is nothing wrong or not notable about creating an article about a street. As long as I can provide reliable sources which adequately cover the subject, which I have done, it is perfectly reasonable for something like this to be on Wikipedia. Please keep this argument in mind when formulating an opinion on this discussion.
 * Regards,
 * Toby Toby3141 (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * unless there is a rush of keep !votes, the consensus here is very clear for delete. I know you think it's notable but that's not shared by the majority of editors here. LibStar (talk) 09:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's okay.
 * I understand that whilst I believe the article has what it takes to be on Wikipedia, you are all experienced moderators and know that Trevelyan Street doesn't belong here. Feel free to snow delete it anytime, and I will stop submitting drafts and articles.
 * Thank you for giving me a hearing and letting me speak my reasoning before deleting it. I have really learned a lot from this, and I appreciate all of the time an effort you have pored into teaching me a valuable lesson I will remember for a long time. Thank you.
 * Sincerely,
 * Toby Toby3141 (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This street does not pass the WP:GEOROAD test. Local streets are not "automatically notable" under that guideline. The sentence you quote about local streets restates WP:GNG. As Fredddie demonstrates in his comment here, the sources used on this article do not meet the GNG threshold. Specifically, we need "significant coverage". That means sources that talk about this subject directly and in detail. This would include a news/journal/magazine article about the street itself, or a book or book chapter about it. These sources need to come from publishers with a reputation for reliability, and Wix clearly does not meet that bar. None of those kinds of sources are present, and so the article fails to meet notability requirements, full stop.
 * Additionally, it's concerning some of the conclusions that have been drawn and inserted into the text of this article. The whole passage estimating the number of residents, which additionally uses an estimate of the number of homes along the street is pure WP:OR, and not allowed. Statistics like that need a source that's directly saying information like that.
 * Finally, a piece of advice to you, : please don't feel the need to reply to every comment in this discussion. You also need to learn to read the room, so to speak. The range of opinions here is clearly against you, and yet you keep replying and almost badgering everyone. Please stop.  Imzadi 1979  →   16:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your consideration, I'm so sorry for wasting your time. I will stop in this discussion.
 * Regards,
 * Toby Toby3141 (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment This is just me, a regular AFD closer, but I don't care for SNOW closures unless there is problematic content like material that violates BLP guidelines. Discussions can change dramatically over the course of 7 days and while this one seems to be sailing towards Delete, there is no harm done by waiting out 7 days. The article is not causing any damage to our readership. Also, closing a discussion too early can make a good case for reopening and relisting at Deletion review so it's better that article creators have their due period to hear a reasoned critique of their article creations than do a rush job. If that makes me a bureaucrat, well, maybe I should run for an RFB. (kidding, I'd never get 85% approval). Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank You!
 * So as to not badger anyone further, I will stop contributing to this discussion. Rather, I invite the readers to scroll up and see the previous arguments I have put forth.
 * Regards,
 * Toby Toby3141 (talk) 05:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:GEOROAD and WP:GNG. If this survives then I'll have to propose my local streets for creation. TarnishedPathtalk 06:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete a run of the mill residential road. SportingFlyer  T · C  08:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - has not garnered significant coverage in WP:RS and lacks any other claim to significance Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. No significant coverage in WP:RS. Utterly fails WP:GNG. -- Kinu t/c 06:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources actually aren't so bad, as they accurately convey that the street exists and supports the information used in the article. Zac Yates (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC) — Zac Yates (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. The author has expressed in their arguments above just how notable and significant Trevelyan Street is. I would have thought the article would completely fail WP:GEOROAD, but have changed my mind reading the arguments of user:Toby3141. Well done on a great article! 61.8.27.210 (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC) — 61.8.27.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep This article is doing nothing but expanding the knowledge and the database of an encyclopedia. It is clearly notable, as expressed in both the article and this discussion, and I see no reason for this article to be deleted.CB0001 (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC) — CB0001 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. Despite what others have said, it doesn't fail WP:GNG. The criteria in the guideline is actually met by all of these sources together. The real estate sources are reliable, independent, and secondary. The other sources provide significant coverage over the street, and prove both its existence and its notability. I would also like to commend the author, user:Toby3141, for their determination and continued effort to keep their article. Well doneGary5362 (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC) — Gary5362 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Thank you! Toby3141 (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I have started a WP:SPI here in regards to recent voting on this RfC. TarnishedPathtalk 02:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment there has been an admission by an editor here that they have engaged in WP:MEATPUPPET behaviour in getting others to vote keep above. TarnishedPathtalk 04:57, 4 September 2023 (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.