Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Division Street

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Move to Division Street (Chicago). Hedley 3 July 2005 14:13 (UTC)

[edit] Division Street

Should be deleted Bumm13 00:12, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Article lacks coherent point and is potentially confusing, as it refers generically to a street name used in many places.
  • Keep, article established notability. Kappa 00:28, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect Division Street (Chicago): also article needs to distinguish more clearly the street as a geographical reference, and Division Street in Folklore. Peter Grey 01:44, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment by author:

This is utter nonsense. The article briefly gives the social history of a well-known location in a major US city, which has become a well known part of American folklore ever since the release of a very well known American film. While the subject matter - a less than completely respectable part of Chicago, the article is, itself, devoid of material of prurient interest, merely referring to improper behavior without giving any specifics which would raise it above a PG rating.

I would point out that the city that I'm speaking of is clearly specified, as is the cultural context of the reference, and that those who wish to speak of Division Streets in other cities would, in no way, be hindered from entering mentions of those other streets in the article. I trust that our would-be censor is aware of the fact that this is a wiki, and that there are means in place by which the casual user may create sections within an article? So what, exactly, is the issue?

  • Comment - if it's a notable subject, which I can't judge from the piece, it needs a rewrite; otherwise delete jamesgibbon 00:50, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)


  • Keep, this article does seem to establish notability, though it could use some cleanup. My vote has nothing whatever to do with the author's somewhat personal comments above. -Splash 01:48, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I've made some attempt to clean the piece up, which resulted in it getting quite a bit shorter. --Dcfleck 02:00, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)


_________________________________________________________________


Response to Splash:

I wouldn't be surprised at all, if this article could benefit from some cleanup. At the time Bumm13 decided to try to get it deleted, it was all of three minutes old, and was a first draft. I haven't had a chance to refine the writing, because I've had to deal with this.

Whether there will be any point to bothering to do cleanup, in this case, has yet to be seen. -- "the noneditor"


Response to Dcfleck:

Nicely tightened. There was one small typo I fixed (you left the phrase "many of bars"; I think that you meant to stick a "the" in there). Oh, and David Mamet is a major playwrite, so I think that one should leave the mention of authorship. The movie was based on the play "Sexual Perversity in Chicago", with a major rewrite of the ending, the film being given a much more upbeat closure than was seen in the stage production.

  • Delete, the bar may be notable, the street isn't. --W(t) 04:34, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)

Comment Cripes. -EDM 05:07, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. The street is notable. For years it was synonymous with the young singles scene in Chicago. The article needs work, but that's what the concept of a wiki is. DS1953 28 June 2005 05:09 (UTC)
  • Redirect, if it's true that the only notable part mentioned is the bar, the page should be focused to just be the bar. If there are lots of other notable things on division street, then how about making pages for all of them and the creating a category of notable things on division street in Chicago? Sirmob 28 June 2005 05:26 (UTC)
    • Keep. Categories are useless for this sort of thing. For a start, they only list things in alphabetical order. An article could, for example, cover the most important features first, and list the rest equally in geographical order going along the street from one end to the other. Also categories are only useful for things that already have whole articles of their own. They're no good for semi-notable items that are only important enough to be mentioned in a list or general article like this one, but not notable enough for their own articles. You'd have to create a List of semi-notable places on Division Street and add it to the category, which is getting just plain silly. Categories should only ever be used as a very last resort since they're never the best way of doing things. And it seems silly to create one now, when we've already got an article that could do a much better job. — P Ingerson (talk) 28 June 2005 11:44 (UTC)
  • Division Street (Chicago) is one good solution. We have 42nd Street--Wetman 28 June 2005 05:30 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 10:11 (UTC)
  • Keep, looks notable, I don't think it's fair to call for deletion 1 min after an article is created. RustyCale 28 June 2005 11:29 (UTC)
  • Redirect to "Division Street (Chicago)" or some such. -- Dominus 28 June 2005 15:24 (UTC)
  • Delete. The bar may be notable, but that doesn't mean the street it's on is. --Carnildo 28 June 2005 17:28 (UTC)
  • Keep possible future cleanup candidate. The name of the street is/was, indeed, shorthand for the notable "scene" as described here. I'd have no problem with a rename as Wetman et al. suggest. Jgm 29 June 2005 05:37 (UTC)
  • Move as above and DAB at this page. Vegaswikian 29 June 2005 05:48 (UTC)
  • Keep I see nothing wrong with this article.
  • Move to Division Street (Chicago) and dab. --SPUI (talk) 30 June 2005 18:53 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.