Trevelyan Street : 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) [ reply ] Note: this article's content previously existed at Draft:Trevelyan St , and this street is only 700 metres (2,300 ft) 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) [ reply ] 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 • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] Regarding the other road, you're using an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument.  LibStar ( talk ) 09:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] Delete : Fails on any claim to WP:GNG .  Contains WP:OR .   🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] "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) [ reply ] Comment : For notability requirements please see Wikipedia: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) [ reply ] Delete Clearly fails WP:GEOROAD .  The arguments put for keep are very weak.  LibStar ( talk ) 09:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] WP:JUSTAPOLICY Toby3141 ( talk ) 10:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] 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.  Reywas92 Talk 14:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] Are you a resident of this street?  LibStar ( talk ) 23:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] Are you a resident of this street?  LibStar ( talk ) 00:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] Delete and Request a SNOW close .  Looking at

Discussion outcome: delete