Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia Row

Add links
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 Keep. Michig (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Russia Row

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

No evidence of any notability for this street. It is mentioned a few times, yes, just like about every street in the world is, but ultimately it clearly fails WP:GEOROAD. Fram (talk) 07:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 11:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very historic street, lots of referenced content.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • A "very historic street" being a run-of-the-mill street of which there are thousands in London alone, never mind elsewhere? As I see nothing here that makes this street "very historic" in European terms. Fram (talk) 11:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly a relevant street, even looking at the many London streets it is relevant. It clearly meets WP:GNG by a wide margin. The article also meets WP:GEOROAD as it been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable and independent of the subject. These include (after ignoring the maps and directories such as Lockie, 1810), Articles in The Times, entry in the The London Encyclopaedia, articles in The London Gazette, documents published by the National Archive and more. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
    • Which article in e.g. The London Gazette is about Russia Row? Not the one in the article, which is about some people who happened to live or work there. Which is wgat most roads have of course, people who live or work there... The Times articles are about Gresham Street. That the side or back of a building is located on this street is not "an article about this street". Such sources do not contribute to notability as the street is, contrary to what you claim, not "the subject" of these sources, but something mentioned in passing. Fram (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was actually referring to a different article (1892)[1] which describes a pottery there, I am not sure if that is what you are looking for precisely though. I am not saying that I have found everything about this road, you can see any number of things, from the detailed council planning publications about the street, (normally down for maintenance heh link) to the slightly crazy pieces such as this article. this, this, this, this, etc, certainly no shortage of people who think it's funny that Trump Street and Russia Row are adjacent. There seem to be a great many wills and lawsuits where one party was from Russia Row, for what it's worth (not much probably). I still think there is a perfectly reasonable set of sources and that is good enough for a keep. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
  • Delete sorry cant see anything of note about the street in the refs provided, they appear to be passing mentions or nothing you would not expect of hundreds of such streets in London. MilborneOne (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Under the GNG there just needs to be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Significant coverage is defined as coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Hard to see how those criteria are not met here with entries in the Dictionary of City of London Street Names, London Street Names, The London Encyclopaedia and others that are among the leading authorities in their field. Note, these are not one line entries. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You would expect a London Encyclopedia to cover avery street in London it doesnt make them noteworthy or significant coverage, most of the othger sources in the article appear to be directories the British History Online for example is really a one liner to say it is mentioned in another directory. Despite all these directory entries there is nothing of note in the article that makes it stand out from any other street in London, if they are not one line entries then why is the article essentially just trivia. Most of the article reflect the sources which talk about it being listed in these directories nothing about the street itself being of note. MilborneOne (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We'll we've already got Avery Street, I see. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And it’s THE London Encyclopedia, thanks! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar This straw man argument alludes to logic, yet fails to use any. Firstly, only the Trump Street article was needed for the DYK hook. Secondly, what has MLK street(s) got to do with anything? Edwardx (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most American cities do not have the 2000+ year history of the City of London, and were not bombed by the Nazis. If you looked at Vine Street, London today you would have no idea why it was notable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am about to add a fascinating bomb damage map. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure we have artices on London and its bombing by Nazi Germany. Glad we found this street in Jan 2018. Please. Feel free to include it in those articles that apparently didn't think how important it was. There are also 2000 year old streets in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Each, apparently, now deserves an article. Right. --DHeyward (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DHeyward: If you can find some sources for old streets in Nagasaki then by all means make some, notability is not temporary and will persist after something has been destroyed. Hiroshima seems to have some articles about it's streets already, Namiki-dōri (Hiroshima) & Peace Boulevard (Hiroshima), and not to put to fine a point on it, they are not well sourced. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
The Russia Company is actually very well-known (it and the companies that followed in its mold made the empire). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not really inherited and it appears to be connected with Russia Court not Russia Row although the article appears to get them mixed up as it cant decide what the subject is. MilborneOne (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Curiously, Muscovy Company mentions neither Russia Court nor Russia Row. Maybe it doesn't need to. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MilborneOne: It was both, Russia Row contained Russia Court until 1945, when it was entirely destroyed. After it was rebuilt, Russia Court no longer existed. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
Very confusing in the article that it is covering more than one place, the article mentions under location that Russia Court exists and uses a 2018 map as a reference! MilborneOne (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1916 OS map as stated. Retrieved from Digimap historic database 2018. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to improve, Mil-O! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Löschen notability means something other than a lot of citations to trivial mentions. This has been on a map for over 150 years; the fact that a few primary sources refer to people who live on that street isn't the "significant coverage in reliable sources" necessary to meet WP:GNG oder WP:GEOROAD. GEOROAD explicitly calls out requiring secondary sources, which things like In 1852 probate was granted for the will of James Gilburt, a silk manufacturer of No 4 Russia Row. absolutely are not. The coverage in London Encyclopaedia and "London Street Names" borders on being WP:MILL, and based on current policies, I can't support the idea that virtually every London street (and, then, presumably every major street in every major city) is notable with that level of coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at it like that, then yes, several hundred streets in the centre of old London are all notable, certainly at least 107 of them. And yes this is likely to apply to most western major cities. I see no reason why they should be deleted simply because you think that index entry of a probate is trivial (read the probate itself for the detail) and assume that all other sources also are trivial, additionally, none of the sources identified as important so far are primary, they are secondary sources such as newspapers and The London Encyclopedia (which may actually be a Tertiary source). Most cities in Africa have less available sources than this street or the many others like it. The WP:GEOROAD says streets... are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable and independent of the subject. which is definitely the situation here. (note GEOROAD does not itself require significant coverage, that is the GNG, though I maintain, and others here state that it meets that also). Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also find the London Encyclopedia is quite discriminate about what it includes - its entry for Wardour Street fails to mention the Marquee and Oxford Circus gets about two sentences. It just doesn’t print everything and anything! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was someone pretending to be Russian; the master is well known. :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2018 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Russia_Row&oldid=1085518778"