Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ladner Trunk Road

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. My personal opinion is that this was an attempt to use prose when a map would have conveyed the same information better. Rossami (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ladner Trunk Road

While I have some sympathy for nearby 56th Street, which after all is the only access road to the exclave of Point Roberts, Ladner Trunk Road is nothing but a road described in exacting detail. Stay tuned for the entry on the parking meter in front of Pilatus' house! Pilatus 15:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. But it will live on in my memory as possibly the most tedious wikipedia entry I have ever read... Peeper 16:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Yee gads and all that is holy that is tedious. Delete, now, please! -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Major attractions include a McDonald's! Makes me want to put this road on my itinerary next time I'm in Canada... well, not really. Delete in barely held anticipation of Pilatus' parking meter. -Satori ^(talk) 16:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete excruciating minutiae --TimPope 16:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• I wanted to vote delete, but I have to vote neutral because I am in awe of the detail in this article- someone has way too much time on their hands. (Oh, and everyone else has voted to delete anyway, so it doesn't really matter how I vote).--Scimitar ^parley 18:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• oh, it always matters how you vote... HoratioVitero 18:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• I say keep, it is clearly important to the community which it serves... HoratioVitero 18:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that every one of this user's edits, save for one minor edit to Bible, is to VfD. Zoe 21:34, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete impressive detail, but unencyclopedic. CDC (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all roadcruft. --SPUI (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• weak keep to neutral This article would not be called into question if it were about Broadway in NYC Roodog2k 19:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep it looks factual and verifiable to me. Trollderella 19:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, factual and verifiable is not notable. Zoe 20:33, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Bu factuality and verifiability are deletion criteria, while notability is not. Trollderella 20:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Not true, and never has been true. This contention is only repeatedly issued by the estreme inclusionists who think that everything that is or has ever existed in the world should have an article, but it is not policy. Zoe 20:47, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

not notable by whos definition?HoratioVitero 20:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

What makes this road any more notable than any other road in the world? Zoe 20:47, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Notability is not relevant to deletion debates, it is not part of deletion criteria. Trollderella 20:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Repeating this mantra does not make it true. Zoe 21:28, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

It's odd that you put it that way, because, in fact, as you must clearly know, no matter how many times you repeat it, there is nothing in the deletion guidelines about notability. You know that there isn't. I'm not interested in arguing about this with you, I suggest we drop it an go and write articles. Trollderella 22:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Actual articles, though, not pointless trivia. Something considered "enyclopedic" is pretty much a priori notable. --Calton | Talk 00:45, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or if that fails merge in to Ladner. Roads are best described in images as they convey the geographical location much better than any writing ever could. Having a McDonald's on this stretch of road is not worthy of note and it could hardly be called an attraction. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Why not suggest a WikiAtlas project to migrte all this stuff to? BTW, I've noticed roadcruft is extremely US, Canadian and Uk centric. I've yet to encounter an article about a random road from the Netherlands, which leads me to believe these articles are only relevant for the people who have some connection to the location in question. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:14, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability as a critereon for inclusion is an inference from the section of WP:NOT that states: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." It is perfectly legitimate and standard operating procedure to vote based on a subject's notability or lack thereof. Zoe is absolutely correct. Fernando Rizo T/C 21:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. An article on Pilatus' parking meter would be more interesting. (At least it's a cool-looking parking meter.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 21:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable road. Sliggy 23:06, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above, minor non-notable road. Need to expand to road deletion outside the UK. - Hahnchen 00:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• It doesn't even have a Tim Horton's, so I can't see how could be in any way notable. Delete. --Calton | Talk 00:45, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn roadcruft. --Etacar11 00:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN and delete, for the love of all that is holy. Proto t c 09:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Road is only locally significant. I suspect, given the preponderance of road articles of late, that it might be worth having a policy discussion to hammer out clear guidelines as to the dividing line between notable roads and non-notable ones. (One user actually added a redlink to "Lorraine Drive" in Toronto, a monumentally non-notable residential street, to the dab page at Lorraine recently, and I shudder to think of what would happen if Wikipedia had an article on every single street in the world.) Bearcat 16:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Probably something truely dreadful like, erm, well, people looking for information on streets could find it. No, that's not right, sea levels would rise, anarchy would break out! ;) Trollderella 17:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Nobody needs information on every last dinky little three-house residential laneway in the world to be present on Wikipedia. Bearcat 18:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete it's just an insignificant street.Dottore So 17:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Too generic, no distinguishing features. Mindmatrix 22:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable. Lack of notability is not a criterion for deletion. Not sure how much verifiable information you could write about that parking meter, though... JYolkowski // talk 01:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Good detail, if someone wants to write detailed road articles, im all for it. --Cloveious 04:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Stop the insanity. Gamaliel 04:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Ladner Trunk Road, Ladner or a reluctant delete. If someone wants to do the work for a road that has regional significance, I say let them. --Rschen7754 23:36, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep signficant road in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia--Simon.Pole 08:35, 1 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.