This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
There seems to have been a large number of reverts taking place in this article recently. It is important to discuss and resolve disputed edits on this talk page, as anyone who participates in an edit war - even if they're right! - may be blocked from editing. Thomas.W, Coolabahapple, Wikipedian123456, 77.182.248.213 (and various other IPs), your contributions to this article are welcome! Please discuss here how the article can continue to be improved, in accordance with Wikipedia's content policies. In particular, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:CITE are very important, and material that does not follow those guidelines may be challenged and removed. Thank-you. --IamNotU (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
77.182.248.213, normally I would say this on your user talk page, but as you have a dynamic IP address, I'll say it here. Some of your edits have been reverted because it is not permitted to write articles based on your own experience and knowledge. For example, what you know, because you live or work near Münsterstraße. All writing must be based on published sources such as newspapers, magazines, books, etc. It would be good if you could help find published information about Münsterstraße, and and if you could help to translate it from German to English. Also, you are free to edit without logging in, but you may find it better to get a user name, so people know who they are talking to. Thanks! --IamNotU (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article is tagged for notability issues and is the subject of an AFD. References on the article and that have been added are questionable for use period but certainly have no advancement for notability. There are currently seven references:
1)- Nothing special: a museum on a street.
2)- A tourist guide.
3)- News report: Traders fight for survival Police use more staff in Nordstadt
4)- Interview: How a homeowner experiences Münsterstraße
5)- Dortmund history: Could not find relevant subject sourcing. (Primary source)
6)- The history of Dortmund's northern city: Nothing subject specific (Primary source)
7)- Dortmund population report.
Establishing notability for Dortmund does not provide notability for Münsterstraße (street in Dortmund). Sources on crimes, population reports, or a particular city or other locations in general, and not specifically about the subject (main topic or content within a source), does not advance notability.
WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Primary sources do not advance notability.
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Otr500 (talk) 08:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is enough significant coverage in independent sources to establish notability, article passes clearly WP:GNG. It should be easy to find sources for experienced authors - who seem to be active here - which are not necessarily web sources. Instead they seem to do everything to get the article deleted. The criticism here is exaggerated by far, and I wonder if certain content of the article might be the reason.--Greywin (talk) 09:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. After the conclusion of the AfD, I tried to improve the content of the article. As I come here to check the talk page, I noticed this discussion and I was particularly struck by your comments, Greywin. You wrote, "The criticism here is exaggerated by far, and I wonder if certain content of the article might be the reason." What's that supposed to mean? What could possibly be the content that would incite criticism of the article itself? The whole AfD was about the street's notability, if I'm not mistaken, and nothing more. If you're accusing Wikipedia contributors for bias or having some kind of an "agenda," or even insinuating any of that, it would be pretty damn serious. -The Gnome (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please direct relevant notability comments to the AfD discussion. This page is about article content. When the AfD nomination closes, the question of the notability tag will be resolved. Thank-you. --IamNotU (talk) 11:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ user IamNotU: Thank you for your improper instructions but this page is for ANYTHING related to the article be it content, notability, or sourcing. A lack of sourcing of any kind, or a problem with sourcing of any kind, and even the title name, just as article edits can continue, are within the scope of this page for improvements. Regardless of the outcome of an AFD, and especially if the article is kept, my comments are relevant. If you don't like them that is alright with me but you do not have the authority, unless you bought the rights from Wikipedia, to dictate that article content and referencing cannot be discussed on this page. To be sure, if you did purchase this article, I will apologize in advance and refrain from future edits.
@ user Greywin: You will have to enlighten the Wikipedia world as to the meaning of, "I wonder if certain content of the article might be the reason." that I assume "they" has something against. I have zero idea what that means.
Please note the tag wording states: "...this article may not meet..." and "Please help to establish notability by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond its mere trivial mention.".
Please also note during this editing 101 class that even "IF" the article is found notable that does not mean the particular condition of the article sourcing is adequate. Notability may be found regardless of the condition of the article or sources -- on the article. A notability tag may still be relevant after an AFD and solving the above issues would not only provide clear evidence of notability it might deter a future AFD.
Should the name of the street remain in its German form ("Münsterstraße") or should it be transposed to the standard English transliteration ("Münsterstrasse")? Do we have something more recent or more definite that this discussion? On the basis of this guide, we're perhaps on our own. -The Gnome (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find evidence that "Münsterstrasse" is clearly the most common usage in English-language sources, as was argued (in a years-long renaming war) for Wilhelmstrasse, and for Franz Josef Strauss (and by me for Doner vs Döner). I also don't think it's a "standard English transliteration", as the umlaut could also be dropped: [1]. When "most common" can't be determined, then "least surprising" should be used. For consistency, I would follow the practice of using Straße established in virtually every other article in Category:Streets in Germany.
If someone were to undertake a comprehensive review of English-language sources, and it was clearly established that in general, German/Austrian street names are most commonly transliterated to "strasse", then I would support a move (of this and every other "Straße" article). However, that precedent should take place first in an article about a well-known street or streets that said English-language sources actually refer to. It could then be applied here, for example as WP:TRANSLITERATE says, "For lesser known geographical objects or structures with few reliable English sources, follow the translation convention, if any, used for well known objects or structures of the same type." --IamNotU (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The online search for "Münsterstrasse" alone returns mostly German hits with the name in the German form. But "Münsterstrasse"+"street" returns myriads of hits with the street in the English transliteration. Try it. WP:COMMONNAME applíes. -The Gnome (talk) 08:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a well-established convention to use local names and spelling in the absence of a clearly established different usage in a significant majority of English reliable sources, such as with Munich or Cologne. That is not the case here. Please see WP:NAMINGCRITERIA: "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles", and the linked Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Conventions. This has been discussed ad nauseum on that page's talk page, where even Jimbo Wales' proposal to use ss instead of ß was not successful, and eg. here, etc. I think it's extremely unlikely you'll get a consensus to move this article. --IamNotU (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Travel guides tend to have names spelled in the original language so that users can be guided through the local signage. Jimbo Wales' proposal was not defeated; it was simply, as you also say, not successful. I simply find it quite astonishing and hard to understand how the English-language Wikipedia can have article titles with letters that do not exist in the English alphabet, and, as such, are perforce much more rarely found in English-language sources. -The Gnome (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
-The Gnome (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)