Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molesworth Street

Add links
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. — Aitias // discussion 17:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Molesworth Street

[edit]
Molesworth Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable, uninteresting street named after an English lad. Thanks Balloholic (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your subjective estimation of how interesting the subject is, is irrelevant. Our criterion here at Wikipedia is notability, which is not subective. Who the street is named after is irrelevant to Wikipedia:Deletion policy, too. This street is documented on pages 530–531 of ISBN 9780300109238, which not only tells who the street is named after, it tells us all sorts of other information, such as the Act of Parliament that allowed him to build here and what numbers 7–9 and 10–11 on this street are (and who built them). ISBN 9780902561854 page 493 tells us what numbers 38–44 used to be, and now are, and when the first stone was laid. John Thomas Gilbert's A history of the city of Dublin (McGlashan and Gill, 1859) devotes an astonishing 25 pages (pp. 250–275) to this street. And that's where I stopped looking, even though there were further things to look at. Unlike Thomas Street (Dublin) (AfD discussion), this is not on the brink of satisfying the PNC. It satisfies the PNC with ease. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 06:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then get these sources into the article. Arguing is counterproductive. Add, add, add! As it stands the couple of links (note: not even inline citations) that are there are based upon its architecture yet not enough is said of note, just some trivial and speculative lines of little worth to anyone who doesn't live or work here. It should be deleted within the time period unless improved significantly beyond what it is now. Does it have a historic importance or was it the first to do anything or the longest street in Ireland or what? If so put it in. --Balloholic (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What is counterproductive is your nominating articles without looking for sources beforehand. And neither deletion policy nor editing policy require that this article be improved according to some deadline of your personal invention. AFD is not a hammer, and the other, volunteer, editors here are not your personal writing services. Uncle G (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know I'm a bit demanding but I love you all really. I'm only trying to improve the project and I'm taking no prisoners for the sake of some instant results. These streets have been lying idle for years. What I can't understand is why, when there are just one or two lines of no real notability, they can't be deleted and recreated again when someone has something interesting to say about them. They have no purpose right now. Thank you all for being such good little volunteers. --Balloholic (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Because Wikipedia doesn't work like that, and has never worked like that. Per Wikipedia:Editing policy, we are content to allow articles to be imperfect as they develop. And that development can take years, and in many cases has. Volunteers generally don't write articles overnight. We have many articles that took years to get to where they are now. North Asia, an entire geographic region of the planet, took almost five years to progress beyond a 2 sentence stub. We don't delete stubs that have potential for expansion, given the existence of sources from which they can be expanded. And we don't require expansion to be immediate.

            And a subject that has been documented in depth in multiple independent reliable published works is notable, by definition. Once again, your subjective estimations have no bearing at all on whether something is notable. Notability is not subjective, and by making subjective estimations of how personally important you think something to be, you are not gauging notability, you are not making an argument that holds water at AFD, and you are not helping Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - if this is kept, it will need disambiguating. Molesworth Street, Wellington is at least as notable, if not far more so. Grutness...wha? 01:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is a reasonably interesting street. If the criteria for deleting Dublin streets is because they are called after "english lads", then that accounts for quite alot of them. Snappy (talk) 05:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Snappy. Yes - but not the most notable ones like O'Connell Street, named after a decent Irish lad. However that is the only bit where you make sense. You lose me at the other bit of your opinion. If we keep every street because it is "reasonably interesting" we will have an atlas. I suggest you take your agenda to Wikiatlas or some such thing if one exists. That would be more suited to your liking I think. Lots of love to you. --Balloholic (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficiently notable and sufficient sources found. DGG (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources show it is notable. RMHED (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How? - Some government offices, such as the Passport office and the Government Publications Sales Office are also found on this street. At that rate the most of the city streets would have an article. --Balloholic (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Clearly none exist. Which leads me to suspect an untruth. And as for Leinster House - it's in Kildare Street. We can't keep streets just because a building with some notability happens to be nearby - "ah sure it's only around the corner". Nonsense. We'll have to delete Kildare Street so and that's much more worthy of being kept.
Sources exist. Sources exist relating to just about every street and avenue in the world. They can't all be notable just because a Spanish Prime Minister picked his nose there or a Danish President choked to death on her pizza. --Balloholic (talk) 13:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Examples of protests in Molesworth Street: 2003 Labour Youth, Farmers Protest 2008 - Masonic Hall visible in background. On a more philosophical note, absense of a photo doesn't constitute disproof - few of us would have photos of our great-grandparents, for example. Finally, your mention of untruth seems to be sailing away from WP:AGF Autarch (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I politely suspected an untruth and I cannot but have the same opinion now. We cannot be certain of any photo uploaded to Flickr. It is easy for someone to say that a photo was taken at a government protest but it could just as easily have been taken at a typical Saturday country mart in Roscommon. --Balloholic (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not unless the Masonic Hall from Molesworth Street has been transported to Roscommon! Another photo of the other protest also shows the Hall on the right The last photo was taken facing directly away from Leinster House. Given that the Masonic hall appears in photos of at least two protests, it seems sensible to assume both were taken at the same location. Said building also appears in the photo on this page. Autarch (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood my point and took it rather too literally. It is obvious this is not Roscommon but it could easily be another part of Dublin or even Limerick/Galway/Cork/somewhere in Lithuania or Liechtenstein. It can appear in as many photos as possible but that doesn't prove it is in a particular place. There is also the possibility that buildings can look the same. It is very easy to make a mistake. It could be a film set. It could be photoshopped. The possibilities are too many to detail. --Balloholic (talk) 15:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does that apply to, say, books too? They can be mistaken or faked too - indeed any source can be faked, whether written, visual or audio. Autarch (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Clearly Balloholic does not understand that while Leinster House is on Kildare Street, the building directly faces Molesworth Street and any demonstration of any reasonable size don't gather out of sight of Leinster House, but instead in Molseworth street. Besides I added 2 references to the text in the article and maybe people would like to review some of these 74 instances in the last 12 years in the Irish Times to confirm this noteworthy location. ww2censor (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

74? The mentions number 74. But I'd like to remind everyone that newspapers such at these like to write multiple note-like articles on the same topic. There is probably more like 7 or 2 real interesting ones, probably highlighting the fact that a farmer fell over himself and was airlifted to Shannon Airport or something non-notable like that. --Balloholic (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "newspapers such as these"? Are you now an expert on the editorial policy of the Irish Times? Obviously you did not even look at the reference that I added to the article or even properly reviewed the instances I gave. The Irish Times is one of the main and most well respected Irish national daily newspapers, just like The Times and the New York Times are in the US and UK, and is a verifiable source for Irish information. If you don't accept it, then we really will have to throw out all references taken from The Times and the New York Times across the wiki as they are also "newspapers such as these". What newspaper sources would actually satisfy you? ww2censor (talk) 16:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am no expert on the editorial policy of the Times and am concerned that you seem to be in such a position? Do you have a COI? I suggest you go elsewhere if you do. the Times no more than the Independent or the Examiner or the Press has been known to be one-sided on some issues and this leads me to suspect you are pushing your own agenda in relation to this newspaper. I will be keeping my eye on you. That will be all. --Balloholic (talk) 16:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on a second. What makes you think I have a COI. You are making false accusation and then say "that will be all". You really should be more careful what you accuse people of, and you "will be keeping my eye on me". I wonder what for. Are you going to make another false accusation about me? Are you threatening me? I am shivering in my boots!! You should really AGF, maybe even check out some of my 20,000 edits. You seem to have forgotten that all newspaper can be one-sided on many issues, but in relationship to this article we are dealing with facts not one-sided reporting. Do public demonstrations take place in this street or not and are there verifiable sources? We can always confirm many of the Irish Times' reports with similar reports in at least one or two other national dailys for the same events but that might not suit you either as you don't seem to regards any Irish newspaper as verifiable. you still did not answer my question: What newspaper sources would actually satisfy you? ww2censor (talk) 17:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be losing your cool. That is very unhelpful and will not aid the project. Your behaviour is very threatening for someone who claims to have as much experience as you. It seems to be frowning on my efforts because I cannot match your high edit count. That was not the most constructive of your many thousands of edits by far. The fact that you claim either realistically or sarcastically to be "shivering in my boots" is not like an editor of your experience. Perhaps some mentions internationally would break the Irish hold you have. I believe you may be a high profile person in the Times and have stated that calmly. You have overreacted and that leads me to further suspect you of COI and getting itchy feet as the net closes in on you. I did not swear. I said my belief calmly, have held on many seconds and that is on record. I AGF everyone at first glance but your comment led me to suspect you of a crime. I am now even more convinced that i am right and with good reason. I would be very careful if I was you. Anyone can keep an eye on anyone. I am sure you have done that before and you probably are keeping an eye on me because you and some others are following me around. I have interrupted discussions on userpages warning that "another one" has been nominated. I have undergone harsh treatment and have no friends but I keep going with what I believe. Making the project better. That will be all. --Balloholic (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{outdent) Balloholic you made accusations and threats and you say I am frowning on your efforts and now you call me a criminal. You have no idea how silly you sound suggesting I overreacted but with such new accusation who would blame me if I did overreact? I asked repeatedly what newspaper sources will satisfy you, but you still refuse to answer that simple question. At least sarcasm is better then accusations and threats. I simply suggested you check out some of my edits to see if your accusation would hold water, well it does not. I have nothing to do with the Irish Times; I doubt you will find more than a handful of edits where I have even cited that newspaper, so go let the tryptophan do its work, then you can retract you threats and accusations. ww2censor (talk) 23:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • You're not making much sense. I'm making constructive points about you and about certain articles. You seem to be shooting them down by suggesting you have more authority and waving your high amount of edits in my face. I think if you reread carefully you will find that I have not directly called you a criminal and I would consider it an overeaction. I think you might be connected to this newspaper because of your comments that indicate that. That is my thought. You would think I was sentencing you to death and you are screaming for mercy. I think you are breaking POINT by hammering in my face your agenda on newspaper sources. Sarcasm being better than so called accusations and threats is just your opinion. It matters no more than me thinking you are a newspaper man. Stick to censoring the second world war and don't censor me. I have given my opinion and that will be all. --Balloholic (talk) 14:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (it looks like it's snowing) per sources indicated above (particularly by Uncle G) providing sufficient notability. --Oakshade (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                        • But are the sources worthy? Are they notable? There's not much use in them if they're about an account of a man having his tooth extracted or a lamp-post that dogs regularly lift their legs to. There's no snow here at all. You're extremely lucky. --Balloholic (talk) 16:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Balloholic, you raised the question on the reliability of photos - I simply asked how much that applied to other sources. I'm trying to figure out exactly what criteria you are judging by. Now you've just changed the issue from reliability to notability. Autarch (talk) 17:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (indent) Balloholic, we have no idea what you are talking about now. Before this response, the only post I made in the forum was my preference to keep this article. I never "interrupted" anyone.--Oakshade (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2008 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Molesworth_Street&oldid=1082621943"