Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voss-strasse
Source: 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 of the debate was keep. Grue 14:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Voss-strasse
This nomination is nothing but a piece of haraßment directed at me as the author of the article. It should be discontinued and those responsible warned against such tactics. The things people do when they can't get their own way... Adam 16:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As nominator, I find this claim bizarre; doubly so, since I have expressly agreed with Adam on the naming issue [1]. Septentrionalis 17:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable street. The Reich Chancellery is notable, this isn't. Significant sentiment to delete on its talk page
- Delete as nom. Temporary Userification, to permit the article to be submitted to some more appropriate wiki, like Wikitravel, would be acceptable. Either would settle the metastasis of the "how to spell German" discussion now on the talk page. Septentrionalis 15:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article has no references or sources, and when the "unreferenced" template has been added to the page, an editor simply removes it and says that the street information is "common knowledge". However, the street is not notable, and doesn't even have its own page on the German Wikipedia. The information may be appropriate for Wikitravel, but not here. See: Wikipedia is not a travel guide. --Elonka 17:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Although not terribly important, this is a nice little article. It has information that the Reich Chancellery article doesn't seem to have such as the prehistory of the street and the postwar history. Perhaps this information is not so specific to this street and an article on the area would be more appropriate which this one could be merged into but I certainly don't know enough about Berlin to make such a suggestion in any serious manner. The references seem to be adequate. Stefán Ingi 21:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Whether or not German Wikipedia has an article about the street or not should not be relevant, as far as I understand German WP has another policy regarding inclusionism, and all the street articles Adam has created are about streets that are key to German history. Blur4760
- Keep... notable enough per Stefán Ingi and Blur4760 and because there's no good place to merge it to that makes sense in all cases. ++Lar: t/c 13:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Rebecca 13:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Streets that are part of the topography of the former Nazi power centre are notable. See de:Topographie des Terrors about a very well known project in Berlin dealing with just these geographical roots. Merge into a larger article dealing with the whole area would be an option too, though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We also have Topography of Terror in English. ProhibitOnions (T) 09:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- weak Delete; I think it wouldn't be out of place as a sub-paragraph of Kreuzberg or Berlin-Mitte, something in the gist of ...notable streets or something similar. Lectonar 14:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The street isn't itself notable (in contrast to, say, the Wilhelmstraße) and a mention of it in the article about the Reich Chancellery should suffice. The original research inherent in the non-German, non-English spelling of the title should be a matter of concern. Adam's statement in the nomination here is, sadly, typical of his attitude toward other contributors in the discussion. ProhibitOnions (T) 09:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, just to you and two or three others. And what precisely have you "contributed" other than misguided pedantry and obstructionism? Adam 13:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. The link in the nomination shows additional sentiment (four editors as I type) that this article should be deleted. Septentrionalis 13:41, 3 July 2006 (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.