Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linwood Boulevard (Kansas City, Missouri)

:{{la|Linwood Boulevard (Kansas City, Missouri)}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Linwood_Boulevard_(Kansas_City,_Missouri) Stats])

:({{Find sources|Linwood Boulevard (Kansas City, Missouri)}})

All coverage is WP:ROUTINE or Register of Historic Places listings. Not reliable stuff. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Keep passes WP:GNG and can be verified, just as I said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linwood Boulevard. If anything, the street would become "more" notable and not less. No new arguments to delete have been introduced.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

:*WP:RS coverage is still an issue. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

::*WP:WABBITSEASON Again, you made that argument last time ("All sources look unreliable..."). If you have new information about the reliability/unreliablity of the soruces, please bring the new information. Until then, we're just re-hashing the same old arguments.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

:::*None of these sources were present in the last AFD, so I'm not just repeating myself. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

::::*The old sources were enough--or at least not considered "bad enough" enough to delete. All new sources (if that is indeed the case) would not change the notability of the subject, merely the editing of the article itself. This is not an issue for AFD.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::*Still, the last AFD closed as "no consensus", so opening a new one is perfectly acceptable even if I have no new arguments. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

::::::*If by "perfectly acceptable" you mean "waste of time" I suppose so. If there is no new argument, what do you expect to change other than WP:FORUMSHOPPING?--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::::*This is not forum shopping. This is a perfectly rational way to handle a "no consensus" close. If no consensus was formed, then why not throw the line out again and see if one does form? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

::::::::*Because so far, it's just you and me. And frankly, I'd rather we just kick back for a cold one face to face. I'm buyin' the first round.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::: Mr. Hammer is well within his rights to reopen this since it closed as No Consensus last time around. He's not wasting time or forum shopping or doing anything else untoward — just seeking resolution on an open question. (Note: I don't happen to agree with him on the particulars here, which is irrelevant.) Carrite (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per the relevant arguments in the September AFD. Nominator's rationale is even vaguer and less convincing than the first unsuccessful one he trotted out. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

:*Wikistalking much? Seriously, you've hounded me at every XFD I've made this month. And considering some have closed as "delete" with you screaming "SPEEDY KEEP, HAMMER DOESN'T KNOW A DAMN THING" at every one, maybe your hounding is unwarranted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

::*Please avoid personal attacks or anything that could be considered such. This is about the article in question and making Wikipedia better.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Keep The last AfD turned up plenty of significant coverage. There appears to even be [http://www.kchistory.org/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/Local&CISOPTR=1956&CISOBOX=1&REC=3 a whole book] on this boulevard. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - I remain unswayed by the arguments to delete. I stand by what I wrote during the last debate: "...Linwood Boulevard is a landmark or the object of substantial, independent, published coverage... Such as, for example [http://history.hydeparkkc.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=78&Itemid=23 THIS PAGE], "Linwood Blvd. Historic Survey," indicating that the arterial is featured in A Legacy of Design–An Historical Survey of the Kansas City, Missouri, Parks and Boulevards System, 1893–1940 edited by Janice Lee, David Boutros, Charlotte R. White and Deon Wolfenbarger and published in 1995 by the Kansas City Center for Design Education and Research, in cooperation with the Western Historical Manuscript Collection-Kansas City." Carrite (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

: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.