Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colorado Boulevard

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. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Boulevard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability asserted, no sourcing found. Deprodded as part of a former major highway, but notability is not inherited. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In doing a 5 minute Google search I already found these: [1][2][3][4] I recommend the nominator withdraw this. --Rschen7754 00:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Colorado Boulevard is one of the most iconic streets in the country due to the Rose Parade, and then there's the "Little Old Lady", Arroyo Seco Bridge [5], Route 66, etc. Additional sources include [6], [7]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of sources to be found, as shown above, and a major part of Pasadena's history. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 12:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above and existence of multiple reliable sources. Shelbystripes (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sufficient sourcing to demonstrate notability. Lepricavark (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @Arxiloxos: And those sources will magically add themselves to the article overnight, right? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:Notability#Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per existence of multiple sources, as well as notable monuments and events (with their own articles) that are closely tied to the road. SounderBruce 21:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - TPH, you should know better than this. With no needed research we know this is an iconic street and multi-town thoroughfare and is most of the route of the Rose Parade.--Oakshade (talk) 03:47, 5 October 2017 (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.