Earlham Road: It does not meet GNG.  I have checked with a Google search, and you find zilch (except for maps and property ads).  The cemetery is notable but has its own article.  Davidstewartharvey ( talk ) 13:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Agree with nominator; fails WP:GNG .  User:Let'srun 14:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the accident/event section might be notable, the road has no sourcing beyond maps.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Long and old arterial in Norwich, largely residential.  Most noted for its nightlife and the sinkhole that partially swallowed a double decker that traveled on this road.  Not even mentioned, the road had a tramway running trough it.  The article should be expanded and better referenced, not deleted.  gidonb ( talk ) 19:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please improve it and I will reevaluate, but my BEFORE did not find anything that can expand or reference the majority of this article.  Davidstewartharvey ( talk ) 20:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In my BEFORE, I found no particular shortage of references on the nightlife and the sink hole.  An occasional article addresses yet another topic.  Hence my conclusions on what the road is mostly noted for.  Elemimele maps some of that below.  Note that I subscribe to WP:NOTINHERETED .  If only one building or land use is discussed, it creates passing mentions and does not add to notability.  Only if an article discusses many buildings or land uses along a road, the road turns into the actual focus of an article.  Your response seems to imply that AFDISCLEANUP.  It is not.  Per WP:NEXIST , Earlham Road passes both the WP:GNG and WP:GEOROAD .  gidonb ( talk ) 21:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As Elemimele correctly points out, here the road proper is the focus of many of the sources.  gidonb ( talk ) 00:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , city streets are subject to GNG.  I will also note that had the article been named B1108 road , it would have been summarily redirected away as a non-notable highway per Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/B roads in the United Kingdom , yet as a city street somehow the bar is lower (when it should be the other way around per GEOROAD).  -- Rs chen 7754 19:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , as the bus incident alone, which is supported by a ref and could be supported by any number more, was quite a major event in Norwich history, and keeps coming up (or down!) in the news [42] , as well as scholarly write-up.  [43] I'd note too that the road is lined by notable places, for example the Plantation Garden, Norwich , whose chalk-quarry origins explain how the bus came to disappear so dramatically, the Earlham Road Cemetery, Norwich , the Catholic cathedral , Earlham Hall and the University .  If nothing else, this road article provides a very useful "list" article allowing navigation of a whole set of undisputedly notable locations along its length, but it also puts them in context.  Of course other things have happened there too, a well-known bust-up between developers and tenants that at one stage looked like it might result in a change in the law, and was documented by a photographer.  [44] ; some of its historic buildings could be referenced to Pevsner if that would help (e.g. [45] .  Earlham road was also the site of one of the city's historic gaols (the other was the castle), and has importance for the history of Jews in Norwich (note Chantry place is a modern square situated between Earlham road and the next major arterial round).  [46] As roads go, this one has many centuries of documented history, archaeology, coherence and relevance as the spine of a major suburb of Norwich today; it's very far from a minor B-road.  The article's deletion would be a sad loss; it can very easily be improved by sources.  Elemimele ( talk ) 20:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, but most of those have articles already.  -- Rs chen 7754 20:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Exactly.  When you put a load of buildings in a row, with access down the middle, it's a street.  And notable streets tend to be those that link a lot of notable buildings...  If none of the buildings, parks, cathedrals, universities etc. in Earlham road qualified for an article, the road itself would indeed just be a minor B-road leading out of a city.  In fact, this is one of the very few streets in the UK that has its own entirely independent claim on notability, an event that it achieved with the aid solely of a bus, and without needing to rely on any buildings at all.  There are very few roads that have eaten a substantial item of public transport and been remembered for it for  nearly a quarter of a century.  Give the poor road a chance, if you deny it its notabiliy this time round, who knows what it will have to do to the unfortunate residents of Norwich to get itself an article next time.  Elemimele ( talk ) 21:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Before I go on leave, i will break down the issues: The article should exist because of the sinkhole incident.  Should it?  Do a search of wikipedia of sinkhole incidents, there is only one article i can find that has a page, Bayou Corne sinkhole .  This page already has a notice to improve as there has been nothing updated since 2015.  In fact no sustained proof on the article, and in reality it should be redirecred and merged into the Bayou Corne, Louisiana article.  This has happened to other sinkhole incidents.  The incident in Norwich, has sustained coverage but it should be in the Norwich page, as it is the locality of the incident or have its own page.  The article should exist as links together other notable areas.  Well inherited notability is not allowed.  Secondly, The Cathedral is linked in the Norwich article, the cemetery should be linked to Norwich.  The University and Park are in Earlham, not on Earlham Road (as the article points out!), which for some reason Earlham doesn't have a page, which is probably notable.  The synagogue again is in Norwich so should linked in this article.  Earlham Hall is in Earlham, again why no article.  Golden Triangle is an area of Norwich, which is notable, but Earlham Road is the boundary of this area, is that notable?  No, the article just needs link to Norwich.  The Plantation Garden is already linked in on the Norwich page.  So basically we have a road that isn't notable except for one incident, the notable locations along it are either linked to the area they are in, and we have a notable area of Norwich (and former civil parish) that the road is named after that doesn't have a page!  There are more historically notable roads in Norwich that don't have articles, like Tombland that have not been written about.  Davidstewartharvey ( talk ) 06:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above.  Okoslavia ( talk ) 14:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:JUSTAVOTE , casted as part of following me.  This behavior was addressed by other editors in ANI and another AfD.  [47] [48] Thank you! gidonb ( talk ) 10:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  See proposal below Agree with User:Gidonb — the fact that a street has many notable buildings helps cement its own notability.  A road is more than tarmac and pavement.  As User:Elemimele points out the bus sink hole event makes the road notable.  A recent source describes the changing nature of part of the road and feature points along it, https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/23637344.earlham-road-norwich-becoming-citys-top-food-spot/ There's history on the bridge crossing the River Yare [49] - admittedly a better source needs finding to verify the details.  Believe this road was part of the Norwich-Watton turnpike trust est.  in 1770.  Rupples ( talk ) 07:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Proposal.  Keep but retitle the article " Earlham, Norfolk or Earlham, Norwich ".  This is the second time the article has been AfD'd.  I acknowledge and take into account the concern expressed by the nominator and ! delete votes.  What struck me when searching for sources was surprise that no article had been written on Earlham.  Earlham was an ancient and civil parish distinct from Norwich up until 1889 see https://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/unit/10093790 There is content on Earlham's history and I believe the encyclopedia would be better served by having an article on Earlham the place rather than one restricted to Earlham Road.  The opening paragraph and some of the text would need amending but the majority of content could be retained as it is still relevant to Earlham the place.  I believe the retitled article would fall under WP:GEOLAND as a former legally, recognized populated place and notability isn't temporary WP:NTEMP .  Pinging all contributors to this AfD for their views on this proposal in the hope that consensus can be achieved: @ Davidstewartharvey , @ Let'srun , @ Oaktree b , @ Gidonb , @ Rschen7754 , @ Elemimele , @ Okoslavia .  Rupples ( talk ) 16:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hey Rupples , I think that both are notable.  You are free to create said article! gidonb ( talk ) 17:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's a tricky one.  I'd agree there's nothing wrong with writing an article about Earlham the historic parish, and it could blend into Earlham, the modern region of Norwich, but I personally don't know what determines the actual boundary of Earlham today, and almost by definition the Norwich end of Earlham road isn't Earlham (or wasn't in origin...) because it was historically the road out of Norwich that led to Earlham!  The places where you'd hope for a definitive boundary seem to provide only a centre-point.  [50] Elemimele ( talk ) 19:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, there's probably too much of the road outside of the historic boundary of Earlham to make a good fit.  Oh well, seemed initially like a decent compromise.  Guess this article will have to stand or fall as is.  Thanks for replying and Gidonb .  Rupples ( talk ) 21:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oops.  Looks as if my proposal isn't such a good idea.  Withdrawing it.  Apologies in advance to those who return here from my ping.  Rupples ( talk ) 22:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question - There are not sources enough to keep this article alive, but the bus-in-the-sinkhole (no, not a traditional East Anglian recipe, though I can see why one'd think that) is definitely worth keeping.  I found two strong and two week sources in a cursory search.  Maybe salvage that part into Norwich and scrap the rest?  Last1in ( talk ) 20:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The bus sinkhole bit could conceivably fit within the sub-section "Other events" under Norwich#History 20th Century (2.6.4).  Rupples ( talk ) 01:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 03:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , seems to pass the GNG.  While searching "Earlham Road" leaves one drowning in mundanities, searching for "Earlham Road" + "tram" yields considerably more interesting results.  In particular this (paywalled) paper published in Engineering Geology has some very interesting background on the history of subsidence incidents along Earlham Road, neatly putting the bus incident into context.  And this conservation area appraisal contains a wealth of historical information -- and even if the report itself is rejected as potentially being in the pocket of Big Road, it provides abundant starting points for further searches.  This issue of Norfolk Archeology appears to have some in-depth discussion of the tunnels under Earlham Road that were re-discovered in 1823.  All of these are well above the WP:SIGCOV threshold, covering the subject directly and in detail.  In sum, there seems to be ample historical material to work with here.   -- Visviva ( talk ) 03:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Conservation Appraisal is a perfect example of why Earlham Road is not notable.  The report is for Heigham Grove, not Earlham Road.  This is a suburb of Norwich, again without a wiki article which is notable.  In fact this book [51] on the parish of St Giles has no mention of the road, but describes how the hamlet of Heigham Grove grew to encompass the parish (from 1886).  As per the previous arguments, the road isn't notable, but the suburbs of Norwich are, and so these articles should be created.  Davidstewartharvey ( talk ) 05:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Then I think we have a viable solution: Temporarily Keep this article until those are created, incorporate the useful (sourced) bits of this one, then retire this article as NN.  Until that happens, though, this has enough sourced (and interesting) material to survive an AfD.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 12:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Okay the latest proposal is to Keep this article, create an article on the parish, Merge this article into that one and then turn this page into a Redirect.  Is there support for this plan?  Or do we go back to Keep vs. Delete?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reading through the discussion, I support the plan , otherwise prefer a keep .  Ultimately the article title doesn't matter too much to me.  If either of these happen, I can offer to help with the resulting merge, or tag/trim unverifiable information after it happens, at an appropriate time if someone wants to ping me.  — siro χ o 03:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Support for reasons stated @19-Jul-2023.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 23:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per everyone above - Notable road and notable bus accident as proven by sources provided above, Meets GNG.  – Davey 2010 Talk 19:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Why are we debating a proposal that was withdrawn?  The AfD has not yet been withdrawn.  I do not see much support for deletion.  gidonb ( talk ) 02:13, 30 July 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: no consensus