From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was keep. From one unsourced sentence to enough content and sources to change some participants' minds, we will call this one an instance of WP:HEY. RL0919 ( talk) 06:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Hallam Road

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Hallam Road (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced non-notable article Tubby23 talk 05:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tubby23 talk 05:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Tubby23 talk 05:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Unsourced, but still notable in my view. The claim of "major arterial road" is backed up in this source (which I can't read bc it's subscriber only but the Google blurb states "one of Melbourne's busiest traffic corridors") confers WP:GEOROAD in my view. Sources that focus on the road exist, albeit a bit difficult to retrieve because you have to parse through news stories of stuff that happened on the road, but they do in fact exist. Curbon7 ( talk) 07:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - clearly notable. The road in question was the subject of two significant capital works projects, one of which is referenced here: [1], and the other is referenced in this article: [2]. This is further coverage of one of those projects: [3]. Yes, some of those articles include obviously promotional content. But none of them are promoting the subject here; they are promoting themselves, and their proximity to a major project on the road in question. In other words, those companies are claiming to be notable because they have worked on a notable road. But there are government sources here that describe the, "tens of thousands of people who rely on Hallam Road, South Gippsland Highway and Evans Road every day". As such, there are myriad mentions of the road in various news broadcasts, traffic updates, incidental stories about police activity, and community news. Because if something happens on this road, its significant enough that the rest of Melbourne needs to know about it. That the article is incomplete is a reason to work on the article, not a reason to delete it. St★lwart 111 09:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify, this is a new article a couple of days old, it does not have references and it is not encyclopedic. It is not ready for article main space, back in the old days this was fine, but we have higher standards now. Now we have WP:DRAFT to give articles a place to be developed, put it there if it notable, it will be promoted out, if not will faded away in 6 months. Personally I do not see it as notable, in my opinion the keep votes are shy on meeting WP:GNG. Jeepday ( talk) 10:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Back in the old days? Back when policy said, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page"? St★lwart 111 12:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Back in the old days before we had WP:DRAFT space for building articles that were not ready for main space. Personally I don't think this one, ever will be but; as some people believe it will be WP:DRAFTIFY is a good compromise. Jeepday ( talk) 17:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Draftification is just deletion with a vague commitment (by nobody in particular) that the article will be improved. Given that the article can be improved with editing now (as an alternate to deletion), deleting it doesn't seem like much of a compromise. St★lwart 111 23:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, The article has been improved by Stalwart111 I appreciate their effort, and I understand they feel the subject of the article is notable, I respect their opinion but disagree. To me it still looks like is not notable, there is a grey area here, notability is not clear. Per Wikipedia:Notability (highways) (essay) "It would be rare that a locally maintained road is notable, though not impossible." Per WP:GNG the subject needs "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," The references on the article are mostly promotion "your government spending your money" kind of things. The closest to meeting GNG is the reference https://www.victorianplaces.com.au/ which would be only one not several, and it is borderline in meeting if at all in my opinion. Jeepday ( talk) 12:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Draftify Aoziwe ( talk) 10:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
WP:HEY Aoziwe ( talk) 11:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per above commenters there are sources covering this road and room for improving the article. NemesisAT ( talk) 18:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Drafity, in its current state it is an unsourced stub with no evidence of notability. It should ideally go through the AfC process, given there are some sources available, if it can be rewritten in a way to demostrate notability, then I may reconsider my position. Ajf773 ( talk) 05:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify per Ajf773Keep per WP:HEY. Deus et lex ( talk) 12:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - In the words of the great Thanos, "fine, I'll do it myself". I have added some information and a few references. It still needs to be cleaned up but its a start and I think its more than enough to avoid draftification. Pinging Aoziwe, Ajf773, Deus et lex and Jeepday on that basis. St★lwart 111 02:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Yep - done that too sometimes. Aoziwe ( talk) 11:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Stalwart111 I appreciate your effort, and I respectively disagree that the subject is notable. Unless their is an abrupt change in the voting, I suspect the article will be kept. Thank you for taking the time make improvements on the article. Jeepday ( talk) 12:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Jeepday, of course - totally understand your perspective and appreciate you engaging in a respectful and civil manner. St★lwart 111 03:32, 31 July 2021 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hallam_Road&oldid=1037047440"