Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. There is no consensus to delete after two relistings. While I believe notability in this case is borderline, there are valid arguments from both keep/delete !voters. However neither side has established consensus for an alternative outcome.  Philg88 ♦ talk 08:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Peking Road

Peking Road (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable street in Hong Kong. The article fails to provide sufficient sources to establish notability. Nor does the article itself give a reason for notability. Delete as per Wikipedia:Notability and WP:RS.

The article was previously PROD but the tag was removed by James500 with the comment, "Wikipedia is a gazateer. You are meant to look for sources with a search engine. Is in Google Maps."

To counter this I need point out that Wikipedia is not a gazetteer (geographical dictionary or directory used in conjunction with a map): see WP:NOTDIR. Nor is it a tourist guidebook: see WP:NOTGUIDE. The sister project, Wikivoyage, would be a better home for this content though I suspect that this road is too insignificant and lacking interest for Wikivoyage too.

It is insufficient to say that sources exist: see WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. You should name sources to prove notability. Before PROD a search was done. Before the AfD another search was done. This road is only mentioned as an address for various buildings or traffic ordinances. No source found gave any information about the road itself.

The existence of this road in Google Maps is irrelevant. Every road in the world seems to be in Google Maps: see Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability. Coverage in Google Maps does not prove notability. Rincewind42 ( talk) 08:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I meant to include an assertion that this page is a plausible redirect but forgot. Even if this road is not notable, I don't see why it can't be merged into, and redirected to, a list, which I imagine will satisfy LISTN. James500 ( talk) 17:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I should also point out that NOTDIRECTORY only applies to lists and is therefore not relevant to this article which is not a list. James500 ( talk) 17:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, and I agree with the nominator that Wikipedia isn't a gazetteer. Maps are reliable secondary sources but don't demonstrate in-depth or significant coverage. The only mentions I can see online are in relation to businesses or buildings located on the road. Sionk ( talk) 11:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. James500 ( talk) 23:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. James500 ( talk) 23:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete While I agree that this is a non-notable road, I would like to point out that the assertation that "Wikipedia is not a gazetteer" is erronious. Quoting the Five Pillars: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. However the gazetteer portion of Wikipedia is, by long-standing consensus, limited to roads at the state-numbered-route level and above; all others must pass WP:GNG. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment  Public roads are of enormous interest to the general public and governments, and any public road (at least in the U.S, but Hong Kong doesn't seem to be different) attracts the attention of the world at large, and does so over a period of time, which means that public roads are always wp:notable.  They are used, for example, to identify how to deliver mail, in a system known as the "street address".  This is an extremely well-known system, known world-wide for centuries.  Unscintillating ( talk) 02:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep  This topic can be WP:V verified using Google maps.  Google satellite has more information and shows that this is a skyscraper district, which means that the significance of this road is more than appears from just its length.  The "What Links Here" shows that this topic has a place in the encyclopedia as a part of the gazetteer, and that this topic is not WP:IINFO.  Unscintillating ( talk) 02:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Bear in mind the article has been added to a navbox, which has been transcluded onto a number of Hong Kong articles. Whether each of these articles mentions Peking Road is very unlikely. In any case, the number of backlinks on Wikipedia is a very dubious means of establishing notability. Sionk ( talk) 15:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  1. WP:BEFORE B5 states, "Check 'What links here' in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia."  Perhaps you should ask the nom why they didn't report on WP:BEFORE B5.  Unscintillating ( talk) 22:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  2. While you are asking about WP:BEFORE B5, you might also ask about WP:BEFORE B6, which states, "Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better sourced articles."  Unscintillating ( talk) 22:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  3. I don't specifically know how to avoid the navbox articles, and would like to know, but I didn't blindly mention the What Links Here.  I'm sure that if you do your own research you will find that the encyclopedia is using these links.  Unscintillating ( talk) 22:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  4. While you are calculating the inbounds links to this article, don't forget to include the articles using One Peking and One Peking Road.  Unscintillating ( talk) 22:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  5. WP:IINFO is not a notability guideline, so your premise is false.  Unscintillating ( talk) 22:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure what point your making in relation to this AfD discussion. If you remove Peking Road from the navbox the 'integration into Wikipedia' will more or less disappear at one stroke. The consideration becomes irrelevant. But you seem to think that every road should have a Wikipedia article, something I fundamentally disagree with. I guess we'll have to agree to differ. Sionk ( talk) 23:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  1. If you don't want to click on each of the links at What Links Here to see if the link comes from a Navbox or is used in an article, then you can do a Wikipedia search on "Peking Road", and you will be able to select from snippets.  Either way, you will find that your claim that the only place that this link is used is in the Navbox, is erroneous.  You might have gotten a hint from my mention of One Peking Road and One Peking that two articles link in just from those two redirects.  Unscintillating ( talk) 01:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  2. As for your claim that I think Wikipedia should cover all roads, I can't pretend to understand why you would state that.  Needless to say, the assertion is incorrect.  The assertion suggests that you still haven't noticed my statement that WP:IINFO is not a notability guideline, yet you above used the word "indiscriminate" in reference to the gazetteer, so it appears that the thing you want to agree to disagree about is something that we are both already on record as being something about which we agree.  Unscintillating ( talk) 01:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 05:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Unscintillating. James500 ( talk) 15:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I think that references are enough to establish notability. -- Good afternoon ( talk) 01:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Unscintillating's argument collapses under policy and procedure. This topic can be WP:V verified using Google maps. WP:ITEXISTS, which is not notability. Google satellite has more information and shows that this is a skyscraper district, which means that the significance of this road is more than appears from just its length. WP:NOTINHERITED; the district and/or the buildings in it might be notable but the road is not just because they are. The "What Links Here" shows that this topic has a place in the encyclopedia as a part of the gazetteer, and that this topic is not WP:IINFO. WP:CONSENSUS is that the gazetteer part of the Five Pillars covers roads that are numbered routes in national or provincial-level systems. I.E. in the US, Interstate Highways, U.S. Highways, and State Highways are 'automatically notable' per 5P = Gazetteer; county roads and unnumbered routes must pass GNG to have individual articles. The references provided in the article do not establish that GNG is met; there is insufficient in-depth coverage. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Comment. I have turned the above statement by The Bushranger from a "Delete" vote to a "Comment": The Bushranger has already voted in this discussion. Underwaterbuffalo ( talk) 08:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Ah, thanks for catching that! I'd completely forgotten I'd done that. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC) reply
For the reasons that I explained at the AfD on Tung Choi Street, I don't think NOTINHERITED is applicable in relation to notability derived from the buildings on the street, because they arguably are part of the street. James500 ( talk) 13:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC) I think I should also observe that ITEXISTS and NOTINHERITED are not policy, they are part of an essay. James500 ( talk) 09:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Bushranger's argument that the WP:V content policy is not a notability guideline, is a truism.  The mention of the essay ITEXISTS in this context is verbiage.  Unscintillating ( talk) 14:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The WP:N nutshell explains that notability on Wikipedia is shown for those topics that have attracted sufficiently significant attention from the world at large over a period of time.  We know from the article that this road was renamed in 1909, which thoroughly passes the test of time.  Unscintillating ( talk) 14:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • "Skyscraper district" means more than that there are tall buildings.  This is an indicator of economic activity, activity which draws attention to the street in various ways, such as the publication of the street name in business advertising.  This is also an indicator of the presence of a high volume of pedestrian and motor vehicle traffic, much more so than a country road of the same length.  Unscintillating ( talk) 14:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 01:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Above on this page, The Bushranger says " WP:CONSENSUS is that the gazetteer part of the Five Pillars covers roads that are numbered routes in national or provincial-level systems." Could that user, or someone else, please provide some actual evidence that such consensus exists, such as a policy or a guideline or a well attended RfC. James500 ( talk) 04:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Reply WP:NGEO-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 06:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
      • All GEOROAD says is that certain roads "are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable and independent of the subject." It does not say that the reverse is true. It does not say that if those roads fail that test they are ipso facto non-notable or even that they are presumed to be non-notable. Accordingly it is possible for them to be deemed notable on other grounds if there is sufficient local consensus. This is often true of SNG that are intended to be broader than GNG. James500 ( talk) 21:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peking_Road&oldid=1070387089"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE