541:(to Colonel Warden) Thank you for your objectionable and insulting suggestion that I am not doing any work myself and am "too busy deleting the work of others" to do any. If I thought this article was borderline and worthy of saving, I would have done what i could to save it - as I have done with dozens of such articles brought up for AFD. In this case, however, the road is so far below the requirements of notability that it seems unlikely that - unless someone is actually on the ground in Dublin with a secret source of information about the place unknown to the web - there was no way that anything I could do to it would save it. FWIW, I have deleted only a smallnumber of articles in comparison to the number that I have created or improved over the years I have been on Knowledge. As for "QED", your comments do indeed demonstrate something, but not, I suggest, what it is that you are trying to demonstrate. If even a significant tome like the
458:- another street best known for references to it in a notable creative work. There is no separate article on the lane itself, however - there are details about the road within the article on the song. The street is not notable enough for its own article,. despite being an important feature of a major creative work. Similarly, there is nothing notable about Newbridge Avenue itself - any fame it has is through references to it in Ulysses. It does not deserve its own article; all it should have are details within the article on Ulysses. I would have no objection to a separate subarticle (e.g.,
454:. Outside that context, there's nothing - the best web hits for it are for estate agents, which are hardly the reliable secondary sources required to meet notability standards. Find me one reliable source that is not primarily about the novel, and my views on this subject's notability may change - since it would also make it closer to meeting WP:N. Without those sources, though, or some other reason why the street may be regarded as intrinsically notable, it does not meet those standards. Let's take an analogy here: the article on
838:-- nothing in the arguments above demonstrates notability. It is just another NN street. We cannot have an article on every street in every city. Once many articles used to have a "Popular Culture" section, full of trivia, such as minor literary allusions, and allusions in film on TV etc. These were deleted wholesale sometime ago. Let's not have this trash back, even the high-literary part.
417:. And your concept of inherent notability is flawed since all streets only inherently consist of some paving and street furniture. What makes them notable is always something else - their buildings, uses, destination, history or whatever. The only test remains whether the subject has been noticed in reliable sources and this one certainly has.
446:. The result was a snowball keep after no-one other than the nominator saw deletion s being appropriate. As for my concept of inherent notability, it relies largely on WP:N, which lays things out pretty clearly. As far as WP:N is concerned, this street does not meet the required notability standards. Within the context of
775:
That won't help, especially given that none of the world's
Newbridge Avenues seem particularly noteworthy. There's very little evidence that the ones in Sunderland, Wolverhampton, San Mateo and elsewhere are in any way worth articles. The most notable one other than the one being discussed here seems
915:
I see. So several books mention little locations in fictional worlds like Narnia, MiddleEarth or
Hogswarts. Does that make every nook and cranny in them all notable? And more to the point what are these sources? If one says a baby seal was murdered here in 1752 and another says a dog died of genital
881:
sufficient indications of notability, and sources to show it. There will probably be sufficient sources for every individual street given in Joyce. They have all been included in the immense literature on his works, since they are considered characterizing elements. I would not necessarily say this
545:
can only provide you with one small sentence worth mentioning on the road, and that on a fairly unnotable aspect of it, then they definitely demonstrate the lack of notability of the place. You comments also clearly demonstrate difficulty in arguing to the subject of the discussion and a definite
387:
I don't see anything notable about the street in its own right. Being part of the action of a major novel does not in itself make a street inherently notable; the novel is notable, the street is not. As to the essay, yes, it is simply a personal opinion, but one which is used by a large number of
567:
One sentence? Is this another of your arbitrary numerical rules? I have added some more sentences and structured the article into three paragraphs which demonstrate this location's notability in three separate respects - its appearance as a significant location in
Ulysses; its topography and
793:
A list will do. Better than one non-notable Dublin avenue. Failing that, this article should be transferred to the NY branch of editors I expect will be waiting in the wings to take on the task described above. That is - all Dublin material will be filtered out and the article converted to an
388:
other editors too - and no, the cross-namespace redirect is not misleading, it is common practice for extensively used personal essays to be linked in this way (and the redirects from
Wikispace to it were resoundingly kept when brought up for deletion last year for just that reason).
916:
herpes and rabies here in 1534 and another says a woman tripped and fell flat on her face and broke her front nose and left ear in 1991 - does that make such a place notable for an encyclopedia? No it doesn't (because I know someone will be silly enough to answer yes to that!) --
941:
I am very uncomfortable with the different signatures and I was taken in until it was pointed out above. How do we know she hasn't contributed to this or any of the other street conversations under different names? This has moved me. I think her opinion should be disqualified.
521:
I read all the above and found it to be a waste of time. Even the suggestion that this is notable is the same old brand of no-hold-barred unmitigated inclusionism that suggests that if some dumbass somewhere, sometime once wrote anything published about something, then
495:
seem better. As for sources, you seem to suppose that your personal rule excuses you from doing any work yourself. No matter, I am used to such commands from those who are too busy deleting the work of others. I have just added a citation to the
358:
Notable streets and roads can be divided into two types: those which are inherently notable due to some specific historical, geographical, or other quirk ... The first type of street is usually notable enough for an article in its own
568:
history; the current high prices of property there. I may well find other aspects of the place which merits inclusion - the main difficulty is that there are hundreds of sources to select from and so poring over them is laborious.
301:
Sorry, you can't just dismiss a swathe of sources because they don't suit your case. For example, the Queen of
England is just notable for being the Queen. She doesn't need to be a great author, acrobat and/or footballer too.
965:
James Joyce maybe be highbrow but the notability is still fictional and if this street is notable it has to have relevance in the real world. The rest of the article contains nothing to demonstrate notability.
279:
Well if they exist, get them and put them to some use. Ulysses isn't the be all and end all of everything. Find more references. Is this avenue notable for anything other than appearing in a book. --
776:
to be the one in East Meadow, New York. Given that
Eleanor Roosevelt briefly lived there, it may be more noteworthy than the Dublin one, but even it would be struggling for a stand-alone article.
629:
Ignoring the sheer utter irrelevance of much of the above discussion and have solved the problem. I notice
Grutness speaks some sense. Article will be redirected to the more NPOV link located
930:
Don't bother trying to argue that point. Inclusionist, or whatever he's calling himself right now, is only here pushing his agenda that EVERYTHING is notable pretty much without exception.
462:
or similar. Such an article may indeed be appropriate. Certainly it would make more sense than a bundle of articles on streets which have no inherent notability in and of themselves.
361:" This street is clearly of the first type due to the quirk that it plays a significant part in a novel which has received extensive literary interest and analysis. Therefore, by
761:
Disambiguate. A list of
Newbridge Avenues from across the world. However this one will merely be mentioned on it discreetly and will not have an article of it's own I'm afraid. --
714:
177:
Notability is not a matter of just deserts or an arbitrary number. What matters is sources and this place has them in abundance. I have added a few citations to demonstrate.
124:
740:
91:
86:
95:
134:- A non notable avenue, which mentions being the setting of an event in a famous book which of course deserves its own article, but this avenue doesn't
78:
814:
could have been redirected to something re
Ulysses, which would be an inappropriate assertion of ownership over a highly generic name. Redirecting
669:
It's not at all notable in its own right Warden and I really don't think it should exist. I stick to my safely locked guns on this matter. --
237:
Estate Agents, Property
Developers - They are not genuine sources. There is a house being sold on nearly every street in the world. --
17:
984:
856:
It is the numerous sources which well demonstrate notability. Your argument about every street in the world is debunked at
82:
459:
413:
was proposed for deletion a year ago, there was the delete nomination plus one delete and one keep and the close was
794:
American one. Either way this ought to be deleted and passed on for New York to deal with. Let them sort it out. --
526:
it is deserving of an article. That's so moronic that I can't bring myself to even humor you by arguing the point.
630:
1053:
36:
1052:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
865:
815:
656:
573:
505:
422:
374:
307:
264:
222:
182:
74:
66:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1036:
1007:
975:
951:
936:
925:
910:
893:
869:
847:
826:
803:
788:
770:
755:
729:
704:
678:
660:
642:
620:
577:
558:
532:
509:
474:
426:
400:
378:
339:
311:
288:
268:
246:
226:
204:
186:
169:
143:
60:
1032:
971:
906:
843:
700:
all over the world (maps.google.com, anyone?), so a redirect is inappropriate (as is this article). Cheers,
546:
penchant for directly attacking those who disagree with you rather than the points they raise. QED indeed.
329:
and its related sub-policies. Sources and verifiability to not automatically make something notable. Fails
857:
818:
to something related to Ulysses would seem appropriate. I can see little need for anything but redink at
217:
There are numerous sources. I have cited some and provided links to others in the article's talk page.
902:
947:
921:
799:
766:
674:
638:
616:
366:
284:
242:
200:
139:
861:
652:
569:
501:
488:
418:
370:
303:
260:
218:
178:
1028:
967:
839:
823:
782:
701:
552:
492:
468:
394:
163:
983:-- The reliable sources provided in the references section highlight the street notability per
195:
But there are no sources. This avenue is just like every other one in Ireland - not notable. --
751:
725:
442:
were resoundingly kept. have a look at the one above, for instance, which is for the redirect
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1003:
819:
811:
410:
362:
349:
330:
943:
917:
795:
762:
670:
634:
612:
607:
451:
280:
238:
196:
135:
931:
527:
334:
51:
435:
My memory is not faulty, but your reading of what I wrote appears to be - I said that
993:
889:
777:
547:
500:
which has an entry for this place relating its history in other connections. Q.E.D.
463:
443:
389:
353:
158:
150:
747:
721:
112:
999:
326:
484:
455:
365:, this article is notable. And since it is notable in the usually way, per
884:
325:- I'm afraid you are mistaken Colonel Warden and perhaps need to read
356:' personal opinion (and so the redirect is misleading) but it says, "
651:
So you are withdrawing your proposal that the article be deleted?
1046:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
901:
Several books are listed as sources, making this entry notable.
259:
is not of this sort and there are numerous others like this.
810:
The move was useful in that it addressed the risk that
119:
108:
104:
100:
715:
list of Transportation-related deletion discussions
487:article is a peculiar mix of music and geography.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1056:). No further edits should be made to this page.
992:policy in Knowledge, not a fictional policy as
257:A Topographical Guide to James Joyce's Ulysses
8:
741:list of Ireland-related deletion discussions
822:once this discussion concludes. Cheers,
739:: This debate has been included in the
713:: This debate has been included in the
450:, it deserves mention in the article
7:
460:Places mentioned in Ulysses (novel)
24:
333:by an impressively long margin.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
985:Knowledge:Notability (fiction)
149:Another one that doesn't meet
1:
1037:06:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
1008:07:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
976:19:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
952:18:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
937:17:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
926:15:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
911:14:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
894:12:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
870:10:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
848:23:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
827:03:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
804:23:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
789:23:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
771:16:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
756:04:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
730:04:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
705:04:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
679:01:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
661:01:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
643:01:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
621:21:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
578:11:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
559:22:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
533:04:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
510:00:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
475:00:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
427:23:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
409:Your memory is faulty. When
401:23:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
379:21:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
340:20:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
312:22:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
289:15:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
269:14:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
247:14:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
227:14:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
205:13:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
187:09:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
170:00:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
144:22:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
61:10:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
1073:
1019:As of now, that is only a
1049:Please do not modify it.
816:Newbridge Avenue, Dublin
75:Newbridge Avenue, Dublin
67:Newbridge Avenue, Dublin
32:Please do not modify it.
1027:policy as you stated.
543:Encyclopedia of Dublin
498:Encyclopedia of Dublin
882:about other authors.
153:by a country mile...
489:Abbey Road (street)
493:Abbey Road (album)
44:The result was
785:
758:
744:
732:
718:
698:Newbridge Avenues
555:
471:
397:
255:A source such as
166:
59:
1064:
1051:
934:
820:Newbridge Avenue
812:Newbridge Avenue
783:
745:
735:
719:
709:
553:
530:
469:
395:
337:
164:
122:
116:
98:
58:
56:
49:
34:
1072:
1071:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1054:deletion review
1047:
932:
858:WP:ALLORNOTHING
528:
452:Ulysses (novel)
335:
118:
89:
73:
70:
52:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1070:
1068:
1059:
1058:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1023:policy, not a
1011:
1010:
978:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
954:
896:
875:
874:
873:
872:
862:Colonel Warden
851:
850:
833:
832:
831:
830:
829:
808:
807:
806:
733:
707:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
664:
663:
653:Colonel Warden
646:
645:
624:
623:
601:- I suggest a
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
570:Colonel Warden
562:
561:
536:
535:
513:
512:
502:Colonel Warden
478:
477:
430:
429:
419:Colonel Warden
404:
403:
382:
381:
371:Colonel Warden
369:, we're good.
343:
342:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
304:Colonel Warden
294:
293:
292:
291:
274:
273:
272:
271:
261:Colonel Warden
250:
249:
234:
233:
232:
231:
230:
229:
219:Colonel Warden
210:
209:
208:
207:
190:
189:
179:Colonel Warden
172:
129:
128:
69:
64:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1069:
1057:
1055:
1050:
1044:
1043:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1029:Themfromspace
1026:
1022:
1018:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1009:
1005:
1001:
997:
995:
991:
986:
982:
979:
977:
973:
969:
968:Themfromspace
964:
961:
953:
949:
945:
940:
939:
938:
935:
929:
928:
927:
923:
919:
914:
913:
912:
908:
904:
900:
897:
895:
891:
887:
886:
880:
877:
876:
871:
867:
863:
859:
855:
854:
853:
852:
849:
845:
841:
840:Peterkingiron
837:
834:
828:
825:
824:Jack Merridew
821:
817:
813:
809:
805:
801:
797:
792:
791:
790:
787:
786:
779:
774:
773:
772:
768:
764:
760:
759:
757:
753:
749:
742:
738:
734:
731:
727:
723:
716:
712:
708:
706:
703:
702:Jack Merridew
699:
695:
692:
691:
680:
676:
672:
668:
667:
666:
665:
662:
658:
654:
650:
649:
648:
647:
644:
640:
636:
632:
628:
627:
626:
625:
622:
618:
614:
610:
609:
604:
600:
597:
596:
579:
575:
571:
566:
565:
564:
563:
560:
557:
556:
549:
544:
540:
539:
538:
537:
534:
531:
525:
520:
517:
516:
515:
514:
511:
507:
503:
499:
494:
490:
486:
482:
481:
480:
479:
476:
473:
472:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
441:
440:
434:
433:
432:
431:
428:
424:
420:
416:
412:
408:
407:
406:
405:
402:
399:
398:
391:
386:
385:
384:
383:
380:
376:
372:
368:
367:WP:NOTABILITY
364:
360:
355:
354:User:Grutness
351:
347:
346:
345:
344:
341:
338:
332:
328:
324:
321:
320:
313:
309:
305:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
295:
290:
286:
282:
278:
277:
276:
275:
270:
266:
262:
258:
254:
253:
252:
251:
248:
244:
240:
236:
235:
228:
224:
220:
216:
215:
214:
213:
212:
211:
206:
202:
198:
194:
193:
192:
191:
188:
184:
180:
176:
173:
171:
168:
167:
160:
156:
152:
148:
147:
146:
145:
141:
137:
133:
126:
121:
114:
110:
106:
102:
97:
93:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
71:
68:
65:
63:
62:
57:
55:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1048:
1045:
1024:
1020:
1016:
989:
987:
980:
962:
898:
883:
878:
835:
781:
736:
710:
697:
696:— There are
693:
606:
602:
598:
551:
542:
523:
518:
497:
467:
447:
438:
436:
415:no consensus
414:
393:
357:
322:
256:
174:
162:
154:
131:
130:
53:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
899:Strong keep
944:Balloholic
918:Balloholic
796:Balloholic
763:Balloholic
671:Balloholic
635:Balloholic
613:Balloholic
485:Penny Lane
456:Penny Lane
281:Balloholic
239:Balloholic
197:Balloholic
136:Balloholic
54:Sandstein
933:Trusilver
748:• Gene93k
722:• Gene93k
529:Trusilver
524:obviously
411:WP:STREET
363:WP:STREET
350:WP:STREET
336:Trusilver
331:WP:STREET
1021:proposed
778:Grutness
603:redirect
548:Grutness
464:Grutness
437:redirect
390:Grutness
352:is just
159:Grutness
125:View log
1017:Comment
694:Comment
608:Ulysses
599:Comment
519:Comment
448:Ulysses
92:protect
87:history
1000:Jmundo
994:WP:50k
963:Delete
836:Delete
444:WP:50k
359:right.
323:Delete
155:delete
151:WP:50k
132:Delete
120:delete
96:delete
903:travb
860:.
348:No.
123:) – (
113:views
105:watch
101:links
16:<
1033:talk
1025:real
1004:talk
990:real
981:Keep
972:talk
948:talk
922:talk
907:talk
890:talk
879:Keep
866:talk
844:talk
800:talk
784:wha?
767:talk
752:talk
737:Note
726:talk
711:Note
675:talk
657:talk
639:talk
633:. --
631:here
617:talk
611:. --
574:talk
554:wha?
506:talk
491:and
483:The
470:wha?
423:talk
396:wha?
375:talk
327:WP:N
308:talk
285:talk
265:talk
243:talk
223:talk
201:talk
183:talk
175:Keep
165:wha?
140:talk
109:logs
83:talk
79:edit
988:(a
885:DGG
780:...
746:--
743:.
720:--
717:.
605:to
550:...
466:...
392:...
161:...
1035:)
1006:)
998:--
974:)
950:)
942:--
924:)
909:)
892:)
868:)
846:)
802:)
769:)
754:)
728:)
677:)
659:)
641:)
619:)
576:)
508:)
425:)
377:)
310:)
287:)
267:)
245:)
225:)
203:)
185:)
157:.
142:)
111:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
85:|
81:|
48:.
1031:(
1002:(
996:)
970:(
946:(
920:(
905:(
888:(
864:(
842:(
798:(
765:(
750:(
724:(
673:(
655:(
637:(
615:(
572:(
504:(
439:s
421:(
373:(
306:(
283:(
263:(
241:(
221:(
199:(
181:(
138:(
127:)
117:(
115:)
77:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.