Low Pavement, Chesterfield: The sources in the article are listings of individual buildings, but there's no evidence those buildings meet WP:NBUILDING .  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 16:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography , Transportation ,  and England .  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 16:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Low Pavement is mentioned in various directories from the 19th Century, two of which I've just added, not to mention 5 (technically 6) different listed buildings on the small street.  Thief-River-Faller ( talk ) 16:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Listings in directories are not significant coverage, and having listed buildings doesn't establish notability of the street that they're on.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 16:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have now added a couple of books that noted during the 1970s, the town council intended to demolish the buildings on the street, however decided the buildings together were considered to be of 'township merit' which is why the buildings are all listed around that time period.  Thief-River-Faller ( talk ) 17:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Those sources seem to be talking more about the neighborhood overall, rather than Low Pavement, which is mentioned but not described in detail.  The false bomb threat is a minor aspect of the street and doesn't contribute to the street's notability, nor is a bomb threat in itself notable per WP:1E .  Additionally, while Chesterfield Market is likely notable, that doesn't mean Low Pavement is notable.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 19:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Added another notable event, the then Prince Charles and Princess Diana opening The Pavements Shopping Center on the street in November 1981, another surely notable event.  Thief-River-Faller ( talk ) 19:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There need to be sources showing that the street is notable, which means that it has significant coverage in reliable sources.  The fact that an event occurred on the street does not mean that the street itself is notable.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 19:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 13 Grade II listed buildings, 2 Grade II listed Light posts, one of the oldest open-air markets in the country.  the current king of England opening an indoor marketplace, and a recent bomb threat, I think that's plenty enough to prove the street's significance, but I'm of course happy to let others decide on this.  Thief-River-Faller ( talk ) 20:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The number of historic buildings along this street show clear evidence of notability.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We still need SIGCOV to keep an article, rather than merging or some other ATD.  Have you found any?  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 15:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - While I'm not sure the bomb threat or the royal visit (both of which have happened in lots of places) contribute much to the Notability!, the listed buildings do.  The buildings themselves meet WP:NBUILDING , by virtue of their listed status.  The street is in a conservation area , [28] (see pages 27-8), which gives it both status and protection, and it won an award, [29] .  Overall, I think there's enough.  KJP1 ( talk ) 10:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability is not inherited : having listed buildings and being in a conservation area does not make a street notable.  By that logic, almost every street in every city would be notable because there's always something historic on most streets and many streets are in some type of designated arwa.  Additionally, the inner city revitalization project won an award, not the street itself.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 15:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] By that logic, almost every street in every city would be notable because there's always something historic on most streets and many streets are in some type of designated arwa.  That is very clearly not true.  The vast majority of streets, even in countries with very long histories of built heritage like the UK, do not have a single listed building on them.  And you're misunderstanding the argument.  A street isn't inheriting notability from the historic buildings along it.  The historic buildings along it shows that it is historic and therefore notable.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A street isn't inheriting notability from the historic buildings along it.  The historic buildings along it shows that it is historic and therefore notable.  That's circular: the street is notable because it is historic, it is historic because it has historic buildings, and because it has historic buildings it's notable.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 15:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Voorts I'm really struggling to see your argument with this, a street becomes notable because of the buildings and features on the street, or events taking place on the street, there's not one piece of asphalt/concrete/cobblestone on the planet that is notable solely for existing.  As @ KJP1 noted above, The street is in a conservation area, which gives it both status and protection, and it won an award.  Overall, I think there's enough 13 Listed buildings on one street, the notable market, I really cannot see your argument for this not being notable. .  Thief-River-Faller ( talk ) 17:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This discussion is becoming rather philosophical.  For me, a street covers the buildings that stand on it, it defines the area in which they stand.  It can't just be the strip of tarmac down the middle.  Queen Anne's Gate , which I'd agree is more notable than this, is important because it has a stack of Grade I listed buildings, in which notable people lived, worked, socialised, died.  I don't think anyone would argue to AfD that, and the same argument holds true here.  KJP1 ( talk ) 17:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you've summed it up perfectly there.  @ KJP1 Thief-River-Faller ( talk ) 17:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] a street becomes notable because of the buildings and features on the street, or events taking place on the street, there's not one piece of asphalt/concrete/cobblestone on the planet that is notable solely for existing That is incorrect.  Notability is not defined by whether a subject (here, a street) is related to another notable subject (that is what I meant by notability is not inherited ) A subject is notable for the purposes of Wikipedia if it meets the WP:GNG .  The GNG defines a subject as notable if it has receiced significant coverage in relaivle sources.  Here, Low Pavement, Chesterfield, is not notable just because there may be notable buildings on the street (and as I've noted before, under the subject specific notability guideline for buildings, even being listed isn't enough: you still need to show signifcant coverage).  To use your example, Queen Anne's Gate is notable because a lot of people have written about it as a subject.  If people have written significant coverage of Low Pavement, Chesterfield, then it would be notable.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 17:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Significant increase in body and references since deletion request.  Enough refs in Historic England to warrant a stub for the street.  Other citations are added bonus.  - Bogger ( talk ) 10:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Source assessment [ edit ] This is not a full source assessment.  I've already explained why the fact that a potentially notable shopping mall exists on the street and the fact that royals visited the shopping mall to open it doesn't establish notability.  Likewise, a bomb threat at a local pub doesn't establish that the street that the pub is on is notable.  Moreover, there is no SNG that states that having several listed buildings on a street establishes notability.  If editors would like there to be one, they should suggest that, but we can't invent SNGs to fit our preferences during AfD discussions.  To summarize the below, there are two sources, both by the same author, that discuss one aspect of the Low Pavement (its preservation), albeit in the broader context of revitalization of the area.  I would not oppose merging some of the information here to Chesterfield, Derbyshire , or in creating an article for The Pavements , since that seems to be notable.  I think it's a stretch to say that the street on its own is notable.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 01:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Source assessment table: Source Independent?  Reliable?  Significant coverage?  Count source toward GNG ?  Derbyshire Times The source states, in full: "The name Low Pavement simply refers to the road on the lower side of the Market Place – the ‘new market’ laid out in the 1190s to replace Chesterfield’s original market place to the north of the parish church. What is now High Street was known as High Pavement until the 19th century." ✘ No Bagshaw ?  This is a list of businesses on the street from 1846.  ✘ No White This is a list of businesses on the street from 1852.  ✘ No Bradley ~ Discusses preservation of Low Pavement as part of a broader revitalisation plan.  ~ Partial Sadler The page linked to reprints an old advertisement from a business on Low Pavement.  ✘ No Picture the Past This source is a photograph.  ✘ No Chesterfield Online ?  This is a list of businesses on the street.  ✘ No Smith and Sykes This is a travel guide that reviews some businesses on the street.  ✘ No Marsh From the website's about page : "Destination Chesterfield delivers a number of marketing campaigns that are helping to improve the economic prosperity of Chesterfield by promoting it as a contemporary destination to inward investors and supporting existing businesses."  The source merely notes that wosmething called the "Eco Hub" is located on Low Pavement, but does not discuss Low Pavement at all.  ✘ No Appraisal ?  Appears to be an appraisal for the Town Council, but the authorship is unclear.  ?  There is no indication of fact-checking.  Contains significant coverage describing the street.  ?  Unknown European Heritage Awards This indicates that the Town Revitalisation won an award, but it does not discuss Low Pavement in any significant detail.  ✘ No Chesterfield Market By the Chesterfield Borough Council.  ?  Unknown whether this is fact-checked.  Low Pavement isn't even mentioned on this page.  https://www.chesterfield.gov.uk/explore-chesterfield/markets-and-market-hall.aspx#:~:text=Chesterfield%20Market%20is%20one%20of,and%20events%20all%20year%20round .  ✘ No Revitalising Chesterfield Market Govenment website.  ?  Regarding Low Pavement, the source states in full: "The re-siting of market stalls currently located in New Square and on Low Pavement into a single market ground of 100 stalls in Market Square – creating a more defined and vibrant market area. The area will also include a flexible events space." ✘ No Derbyshire Victoria County History Trust Low Pavement appaers on the page twice, both in captions to photographs.  ✘ No Bradley 2 ~ Discusses preservation of Low Pavement as part of a broader revitalisation plan.  ~ Partial This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.  Created using {{ source assess table }} .  Comment on source analysis.  The two sources "Bradley" and "Bradley2" are by the same author and so should be consolidated.  When merged I would adjudge the overall coverage from the two combined to amount to significant coverage.  Rupples ( talk ) 18:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Point 2 : It's highly likely the redevelopment of Low Pavement received ongoing coverage in The Derbyshire Times in the early 1980s.  Unfortunately, the issues of the newspaper covering this period have not been scanned in to the British Newspaper Archive, though they would be available locally on microfilm at the main Chesterfield library.  [30] Rupples ( talk ) 19:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The source analysis above while pointing to non-notability isn't the whole story.  The street contains numerous listed buildings.  We could presumably have a page for each one under WP:NBUILD .  Surely better to have the street as a 'wrapper' for the notable buildings; perhaps there isn't enough to say about each one (I haven't checked whether there is or is not).  So, strict interpretation of the notability guideline in the way argued by the nominator in this case doesn't make a great deal of sense to me.  The article does require improvement though.  Recommend removing the bomb threat piece; it is an insignificant and trivial moment in the street's history and detracts from the article's merit.  Rupples ( talk ) 00:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Erm.  Just discovered the Low Pavement listed buildings are included within Listed buildings in Chesterfield, Derbyshire , which kind of negates my main reason for keeping this.  Not sure now, so striking above ! vote.  Rupples ( talk ) 03:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - one of the most notable streets in the town, and on balance I think there is enough for an article.   I've added some more history, and if anyone has access to Bestall's History of Chesterfield books, I suspect there will be more in there.  Warofdreams talk 00:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to a new Chesterfield Town Centre article.  There are also several listed buildings on Market Place and New Square on the opposite side of the square from this steet, as well as other nearby streets.  With such an enormous number of listed buildings, there's also an enormous number of streets with multiple listed buildings, but that does not mean the street itself is necessarily notable.  The town centre is a designated conservation area that includes other listed buildings and would provide better context as a notable area.  Some of this article already duplicates Chesterfield,_Derbyshire#The_Pavements and Chesterfield,_Derbyshire#Shopping,_entertainment_and_leisure .  Also, all these listed buildings are now just facades whose interiors are now part of The Pavements Shopping Centre.  Maybe that should have an article instead.  Reywas92 Talk 04:09, 8 April 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep