Highways: United Kingdom C‑class Low‑importance

	Roads portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Highways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of highways on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HighwaysWikipedia:WikiProject HighwaysTemplate:WikiProject HighwaysHighways articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the United Kingdom Roads Task Force.

Sheffield Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sheffield, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sheffield on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SheffieldWikipedia:WikiProject SheffieldTemplate:WikiProject SheffieldSheffield articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Ecclesall Road is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-01-09. The result of the discussion was keep.

Untitled[edit]

Ecclesall Road - First ZIP-codes, now this. I LOVE saying: "I told you so!" -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 23:59, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)
- I don't see the problem. Small articles like this one are created all over Wikipedia all of the time. Simply requires editing to bring it into the larger article where it makes more sense as it is not likely tat a whole lot will be written about this road. This was not an unusual situation in my experience. There are, for example, individual articles on each US interstate that probably should stay as separate articles. Your gloating is misplaced ;^) This is not a print media. - 24.94.82.245 05:57, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. The entries on US towns already occupy a substantial fraction of Wikipedia's articles - what will it be like if every street has one. If course if the street has a claim to fame it should stay. DJ Clayworth 17:47, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  - To be clear, I agree. Delete after moving text into town article. - Marshman 17:59, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    - Ecclesall Road is really a suburb as much as a road, suggest redirecting to Ecclesall and creating article on that around stub Warofdreams 18:23, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- This is not print media, but that doesn't mean that a billion articles is fine. And that's literally what we're headed toward. Out-of-control article proliferation is still a bad thing, for a number of reasons... (1) Searching is less accurate (2) Physical size of the database (3) Huge impediment if anyone ever actually wants to use Wikipedia as a base for a peer-reviewed encyclopedia, and many more. I'll try to write them up when I get a chance. Axlrosen 19:10, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 23:14, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- This road has lots of things in it, therefore there is lots to say about it. It gets about 5,950 Google matches. Therefore keep. -- Oliver P. 06:52, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It's as much a suburb in its own right as a road. There's even a sign-post by the side of the road as you enter, which is present in many Sheffield suburbs like Walkley and Crookes, but not Broomhill, a populous student centre with many shops and amenities. If it's worthy of a sign when Broomhill is not, it's worthy of a wiki article, since they are similar types of areas (large out-of-town shopping precincts).

(note - this is a response to Fram's prod, not the old AfD!) L.J.Skinner_WOT?|^CONTRIBS 04:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ecclesall Road is not a suburb, nor an area, nor a neighbourhood... It's a road... It seperates Broomhill and Sharrow at its origina, and Brincliffe and Greystones towards its end. People who call Ecclesall Road an area are people just an unclultured as people who think Sharrow is half of the South of Sheffield... It's an important artery in the Porter Brook Valley with much history derived form it. Only somone as out of touch with the real world such as our beloved Council would erect signs for places that don't exist. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 11:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thank you for your implicit insult, but I disagree. Ecclesall Road is one of the first roads people (students maybe) know when arriving in Sheffield to live, and it is a well-known shopping area. My girlfriend will often go there to shop, and many friend will head there for it's shops or the pool lounge. Saying "Ecclesall Road shops" would be like talking of the "London Road restaurants" or "Crystal Peaks Shopping Centre". It certainly has the same retail area as Crystal Peaks! (copied to AfD debate). L.J.Skinner_WOT?|^CONTRIBS 13:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was comparing you with the council, if you believe the Council are idiots it's your point of vue, one i only implicitly suggested. Nothing I said goes against the important caracter of the road... It's just not an area: it's a road. It's also nice to see you have girlfriend who shops there. also, not everyone lives on Ecclesall Road as a student... Let's not go down the freshers route and call Ecclesall Road student city, some students have taste and live in areas with caracter such as not the Porter Brook valley. The road's important, used, notable and historic, that alone justifies an entry as per Precedents#Transport and geography. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 13:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Scarlet, please remain WP:CIVIL. You did not call Lewisskinner an idiot, you said that the Council is out of touch with the real world, but you also clearly said that you consider Lewisskinner to be uncultured, which is an insult, so Lewisskinner was right to notice it. Please discuss the merits of the article and the potential for an encyclopedic article for the subject, and not whether you like it, each other, the council of Sheffield, or anything else unrelated and potentially inflammatory. Fram 13:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I musn't be speaking English. Nowhere have i called Lewis an idiot nor did I say he is uncultured, you are extrapolating by means of hypothesis as i did not say it. If either of you believe I insulted or directed personnal reprimand on Lewis, then reread my words and you will find none as I am not accustom to using the English language and its many words to that end. read carefully and you will see I said nothing of what you accuse me off, Lewis simply identified himself with a category of people I cited but nowhere did I say he was part of it, I am well aware of the rules of Wikipedia (thanks for wikilink) and do not make it a habit to make open coments on users. If you want us to prove to notability of the article you'll give us a few days to collate information. also for your claim of unotability to be credible, you may tag half of the article in the this streets category which contain nothing more than a line of text, this article having at least some verifiable information found on other articles in the Sheffield series which these one liners do not... Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 15:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prod[edit]

As per Precedents#Transport and geography:

City streets are contested, but minor streets are not generally notable.

The article describes that road as being important and notable. I'll let someone else do the talk. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 11:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ecclesall Road. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]