Addison Avenue : The other citations are about various buildings on the street and not the street itself, and many of them are historic listings, Survey of London , or blue plaques - all of which are primary sources.  Rs chen 7754 06:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom .  Rs chen 7754 06:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Notting Hill or other appropriate area article.  Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Addison Road, London , I agree that sourcing doesn't support the notability of the road itself, but there is a small amount of content here that could be salvaged into an article about the area.  Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 06:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Notable, sourced, meets WP:GNG .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nohttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Addison_Avenue&action=edit&section=1te: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – meets WP:GNG with other encyclopaedic entries.  — Jonathan Bowen ( talk ) 09:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Certainly notable and home to many important people.  No Swan So Fine ( talk ) 15:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Before applies here.  A search of the Historic England database shows the following entries: No. 57 and St James Lodge Numbers 37-55 Numbers 54-56 Numbers 46-52 Numbers 38-44 That's a lot of listed buildings .  Since these houses are not likely to be separately notable, this article is precisely the right place for us to cover them.  Philafrenzy ( talk ) 23:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which is primary, or secondary?  -- Rs chen 7754 17:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Historic England is secondary.  They didn't build the houses and don't own them.  Philafrenzy ( talk ) 19:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you are confusing "secondary" with "unaffiliated".  Rs chen 7754 20:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : there are multiple reliable sources which indicate that the article passes WP:GNG .  InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 16:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Rschen7754 your initial post says only citations 1 and 2 were valid secondary sources, i.e. London Street Names and The London Encyclopaedia .  I believe London 3: North West (Cherry & Pevsner) and the Survey of London (Volume 37) are also valid secondary sources as the buildings on the street contribute to its notability.  TSventon ( talk ) 19:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But do they?  Do they provide WP:SIGCOV ?  Rs chen 7754 20:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would say Keep : I have added Victorian Architecture , which covers the Norland Estate on pages 187 to 190 and mentions Addison Avenue nine times.  I think the Survey of London and Victorian Architecture individually provide SIGCOV, which is supplemented by The London Encyclopaedia (3 sentences) London 3: North West (4 sentences plus background on the estate).  London Street Names only has 2 sentences, which is not SIGCOV.  TSventon ( talk ) 22:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets WP:GNG .  Justwatchmee ( talk ) 19:59, 22 June 2023 (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