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. This does not preclude anyone choosing to merge the article later. Stifle ( talk) 10:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

There is no evidence that Kinnoull Terrace is in any way notable, and certainly not in a fashion which meets WP:N. This article is some sort of WP:SYNTH based on the happenstance that the few properties on the road are amongst the many listed properties of Perth.

Referring to the references:

  • 1 - Perth and Kinross, John Gifford (2007) p.655 - has nothing much to say about the subject beyond confirming that it has a number of houses on it.
  • 2 - Kinnoull Conservation Area Appraisal - mentions the terrace once, to state there is a Tree Preservation Order on it.
  • None of the Historic Environment Scotland refs, nor the architect refs, have anything to say about the terrace.

-- Tagishsimon ( talk) 16:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep and rename to Kinnoull Conservation Area, which clearly is notable. Djflem ( talk) 18:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC) becomes: reply
  • Merge >>> List of listed buildings in Kinnoull, Perth and Kinross. Djflem ( talk) 17:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and oppose move/Merge to [[ List of listed buildings in Kinnoull, Perth and Kinross]]. Page 30 of this document (2 above) indicates that the conservation area is a substantial area of Kinnoull, while this street and the villas on it are a very small portion of it. Page 5 says Scotland has over 600 conservation areas, but I can't find articles on any of them – the conservation areas in England don't have their own articles, but this list rather links to the villages or other place in which the conservation area is located. Coverage at Kinnoull of the conservation area and major listed buildings there (the document describes several) including on the terrace may be appropriate, but this street certainly isn't on its own notable for having a few B- and C-listed buildings. Reywas92 Talk 19:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    • I've moved the information to Kinnoull and will integrate it more into a conservation-area topic. Seasider53 ( talk) 20:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC) reply
      • I counted 56 listed buildings in the area on this map, most of which are in the conservation area. That's a fraction of those across the river in the Perth Central conservation area! I wouldn't think this is due weight or needs to be in a singular article either. Reywas92 Talk 22:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC) reply
        • Note that the problem with our Kinnoull article is that it is (or at least was until today) terrible, starting out sourced to a bowling club's WWW site and not really getting much better. (It gained the cricket club's, the archery club's, and the tennis club's WWW sites as sources.) It doesn't even explain that this "residential area" was in fact a parish. The fact that it has more about the sports' clubs and their WWW sites than it has about the history might be a weight problem, but it's a weight problem with the sports' clubs rather than the history if it is. There's probably quite a lot to be written about Kinnoull in our Kinnoull article.
          • Lewis, Samuel (1851). "Kinnoull". A Topographical Dictionary of Scotland: Comprising the Several Counties, Islands, Cities, Burgh and Market Towns, Parishes, and Principal Villages, with Historical and Statistical Descriptions: Embellished with Engravings of the Seals and Arms of the Different Burghs and Universities. Vol. 2. London: S. Lewis and Company. p. 89.
          • Hume, William (1979). "The Parish of Kinoull". In Taylor, David B. (ed.). The Counties of Perth and Kinross. Third statistical account of Scotland. Vol. 27. Culross. pp. 401 et seq. ISBN  9780903589383.
          • Gifford, John, ed. (2007). Perth and Kinross. Pevsner: Buildings of Scotland. Vol. 10. Yale University Press. ISBN  9780300109221.
        • Similarly, the word "village" occurs nowhere in Bridgend, Perth and Kinross, even though a cursory perusal of history books and gazetteers reveals that this "residential area" was in fact a "village for the boatmen who run the ferries across the River Tay" and a burgh of barony.
          • Lewis, Samuel (1851). "Bridgend". A Topographical Dictionary of Scotland: Comprising the Several Counties, Islands, Cities, Burgh and Market Towns, Parishes, and Principal Villages, with Historical and Statistical Descriptions: Embellished with Engravings of the Seals and Arms of the Different Burghs and Universities. Vol. 1. London: S. Lewis and Company. p. 162.
        • Uncle G ( talk) 01:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Clearly passes WP:GEOFEAT as it is lined with listed buildings. Suggesting WP:SYNTH is ridiculous - the listed buildings don't just appear out of nowhere and get plonked down on the street. The histories of a street and its buildings are completely intertwined. Either we have articles on every listed house (which some editors have objected to in the past) or we have a single article on the street. Which is better? -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The street itself does not pass GNG, and WP:GEOFEAT does not apply to streets. Yes, it applies to the listed buildings, but notability is not inherited. Instead, the relevant SNG is the one below it, WP:GEOROAD, which is essentially a restatement of GNG, which again has not been shown to be met. eviolite (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect as appropriate. Bearian ( talk) 15:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 15:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep (officially, after umming and ahhing above previously), having seen policies being misinterpreted. Seasider53 ( talk) 00:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and expand. Satisfies GNG. This nomination is based, and all the arguments for deletion are based, entirely on the assertion that the buildings on either side of a street are not part of the street. That assertion is contradicted by certain reliable sources (eg [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]). James500 ( talk) 10:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Uhhhhh none of these sources have anything to do with this subject. None of this arguments say the buildings are not part of the street, they say that these buildings should be described a whole and the street boradly, not synthetically because they happen to be located on it. Reywas92 Talk 16:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Kinnoull. A street can have some modicum of notability and still be best represented as a section in a larger article. BD2412 T 01:31, 21 March 2022 (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.
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. This does not preclude anyone choosing to merge the article later. Stifle ( talk) 10:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

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

There is no evidence that Kinnoull Terrace is in any way notable, and certainly not in a fashion which meets WP:N. This article is some sort of WP:SYNTH based on the happenstance that the few properties on the road are amongst the many listed properties of Perth.

Referring to the references:

  • 1 - Perth and Kinross, John Gifford (2007) p.655 - has nothing much to say about the subject beyond confirming that it has a number of houses on it.
  • 2 - Kinnoull Conservation Area Appraisal - mentions the terrace once, to state there is a Tree Preservation Order on it.
  • None of the Historic Environment Scotland refs, nor the architect refs, have anything to say about the terrace.

-- Tagishsimon ( talk) 16:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep and rename to Kinnoull Conservation Area, which clearly is notable. Djflem ( talk) 18:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC) becomes: reply
  • Merge >>> List of listed buildings in Kinnoull, Perth and Kinross. Djflem ( talk) 17:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and oppose move/Merge to [[ List of listed buildings in Kinnoull, Perth and Kinross]]. Page 30 of this document (2 above) indicates that the conservation area is a substantial area of Kinnoull, while this street and the villas on it are a very small portion of it. Page 5 says Scotland has over 600 conservation areas, but I can't find articles on any of them – the conservation areas in England don't have their own articles, but this list rather links to the villages or other place in which the conservation area is located. Coverage at Kinnoull of the conservation area and major listed buildings there (the document describes several) including on the terrace may be appropriate, but this street certainly isn't on its own notable for having a few B- and C-listed buildings. Reywas92 Talk 19:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    • I've moved the information to Kinnoull and will integrate it more into a conservation-area topic. Seasider53 ( talk) 20:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC) reply
      • I counted 56 listed buildings in the area on this map, most of which are in the conservation area. That's a fraction of those across the river in the Perth Central conservation area! I wouldn't think this is due weight or needs to be in a singular article either. Reywas92 Talk 22:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC) reply
        • Note that the problem with our Kinnoull article is that it is (or at least was until today) terrible, starting out sourced to a bowling club's WWW site and not really getting much better. (It gained the cricket club's, the archery club's, and the tennis club's WWW sites as sources.) It doesn't even explain that this "residential area" was in fact a parish. The fact that it has more about the sports' clubs and their WWW sites than it has about the history might be a weight problem, but it's a weight problem with the sports' clubs rather than the history if it is. There's probably quite a lot to be written about Kinnoull in our Kinnoull article.
          • Lewis, Samuel (1851). "Kinnoull". A Topographical Dictionary of Scotland: Comprising the Several Counties, Islands, Cities, Burgh and Market Towns, Parishes, and Principal Villages, with Historical and Statistical Descriptions: Embellished with Engravings of the Seals and Arms of the Different Burghs and Universities. Vol. 2. London: S. Lewis and Company. p. 89.
          • Hume, William (1979). "The Parish of Kinoull". In Taylor, David B. (ed.). The Counties of Perth and Kinross. Third statistical account of Scotland. Vol. 27. Culross. pp. 401 et seq. ISBN  9780903589383.
          • Gifford, John, ed. (2007). Perth and Kinross. Pevsner: Buildings of Scotland. Vol. 10. Yale University Press. ISBN  9780300109221.
        • Similarly, the word "village" occurs nowhere in Bridgend, Perth and Kinross, even though a cursory perusal of history books and gazetteers reveals that this "residential area" was in fact a "village for the boatmen who run the ferries across the River Tay" and a burgh of barony.
          • Lewis, Samuel (1851). "Bridgend". A Topographical Dictionary of Scotland: Comprising the Several Counties, Islands, Cities, Burgh and Market Towns, Parishes, and Principal Villages, with Historical and Statistical Descriptions: Embellished with Engravings of the Seals and Arms of the Different Burghs and Universities. Vol. 1. London: S. Lewis and Company. p. 162.
        • Uncle G ( talk) 01:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Clearly passes WP:GEOFEAT as it is lined with listed buildings. Suggesting WP:SYNTH is ridiculous - the listed buildings don't just appear out of nowhere and get plonked down on the street. The histories of a street and its buildings are completely intertwined. Either we have articles on every listed house (which some editors have objected to in the past) or we have a single article on the street. Which is better? -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The street itself does not pass GNG, and WP:GEOFEAT does not apply to streets. Yes, it applies to the listed buildings, but notability is not inherited. Instead, the relevant SNG is the one below it, WP:GEOROAD, which is essentially a restatement of GNG, which again has not been shown to be met. eviolite (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect as appropriate. Bearian ( talk) 15:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 15:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep (officially, after umming and ahhing above previously), having seen policies being misinterpreted. Seasider53 ( talk) 00:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and expand. Satisfies GNG. This nomination is based, and all the arguments for deletion are based, entirely on the assertion that the buildings on either side of a street are not part of the street. That assertion is contradicted by certain reliable sources (eg [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]). James500 ( talk) 10:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Uhhhhh none of these sources have anything to do with this subject. None of this arguments say the buildings are not part of the street, they say that these buildings should be described a whole and the street boradly, not synthetically because they happen to be located on it. Reywas92 Talk 16:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Kinnoull. A street can have some modicum of notability and still be best represented as a section in a larger article. BD2412 T 01:31, 21 March 2022 (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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook