Washington Street (Massachusetts): * Pppery * it has begun... 22:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 23:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep At least one of the sources mentions the street in the title and appears to be significant coverage.  It's unclear why the rest of the sources don't count for GNG.  Garuda3 ( talk ) 00:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's trivial local coverage.  One could probably find a construction announcement of that sort for pretty much any road in existence.  The other sources: 1 is primary, 2 contains a picture of the road but no actual in-depth coverage.  3 is not in-depth coverage, 4 is the source you listed above, 5 is just a map - a street appearing on a map does not establish notability.  6 is a company boasting about its own work hence primary, 7 is about a park on the street rather than the street itself, 8 is both primary and seems to only mention the road in passing, 9 has the same problem as the source you listed above, 10 only mentions the road in passing.  Compare with Washington Street (Boston) which has a sourced description of the history and significance of the road.  That seems to be lacking here, and I can't see how this isn't just an ordinary city street.  * Pppery * it has begun... 02:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or convert to disambiguation page .  I can't find any good sources that discuss the whole street as a coherent concept, unlike comparable streets like Washington Street (Boston) , Commonwealth Avenue , and Beacon Street that have plenty of detailed information available.  I can't even find anything that indicates this is a defined corridor in any meaningful way, rather than several otherwise unrelated streets given the same name.  All of the sources currently in the article are either trivial mentions or routine coverage; it does not add up to significant coverage.  I can see a plausible case for a disambig page that points at Route 9, Route 16, and some of the other significant Washington Streets in Massachusetts ( Route 129 in Lynn, and the major streets in Somerville and Dorchester if there are good targets for those.  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 08:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  "This is one of the most important transportation corridors in the City, serving many businesses and residents along its route," Fuller said in a Sept. 15 statement.  From the above-linked article.  Seasider53 ( talk ) 13:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: A village of a hundred people in the middle of nowhere has some street or another that is its "most important transportation corridor," leaving aside the plain fact that being a municipality's "most important transportation corridor" satisfies no notability criterion on Wikipedia.   Would the keep proponents care to point out a couple sources they claim provides the "significant coverage" in detail to the subject that the GNG requires?  Ravenswing 14:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Why are we discounting a valid source and instead asking about a theoretical scenario?  Seasider53 ( talk ) 16:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is a higher standard required for sources used to establish notability, than for sources used for citations.  James.folsom ( talk ) 17:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Any street in heavily populated area is going to have a lot of sources.  This doesn't make it notable.  These sources need to go beyond trivial and routine, in order to establish notability.  James.folsom ( talk ) 18:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Generic road with routine local maintenance coverage.  Reywas92 Talk 22:53, 17 March 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: delete