Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1st Street (Manhattan)

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 Redirect to Manhattan streets, 1-14. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 21:43Z

[edit] 1st Street (Manhattan)

1st Street (Manhattan) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete Redirect to Manhattan streets, 1-14 per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, WP:N. These pages have near identical information with no claims of notability. These are relatively unremarkable streets in Manhattan and very few edits have been made since they were created last October November, and it's unlikely that anything of note will be added. talk to Ytny 05:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that while the streets themselves are not notable on their own, the grid and the component streets as a whole are. talk to Ytny 14:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

2nd Street (Manhattan) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

3rd Street (Manhattan) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

13th Street (Manhattan) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete non-notable street. wikipedia can't contain all streets in the world. Wooyi 05:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Redirect 1st, 2nd, and 3rd to Manhattan streets, 1-14. Keep 13th, since it is the southernmost one that follows the grid all the way across. I can add details on a streetcar line that used part of 13th (since 14th was taken), but that would be pointless if the article is deleted. --NE2 05:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT#IINFO. Template:Manhattan Streets should go too, it's huge, indiscriminate, encourages the creation of articles like these, and is better served by the Streets in Manhattan template. Krimpet 06:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I can see the case for keeping 13th, though it might make more sense to merge it into Commissioners' Plan of 1811. And something like Manhattan streets, 23-42 might work for sub-14th Streets. talk to Ytny 06:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That sounds more useful than individual pages for every street. - grubber 06:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Support, agree with Ytny's suggestion. Mathmo ^Talk 12:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Follow up question - One of the reasons I nominated these articles is I wanted to get a consensus of what constitutes a notable street. I believe West 4th Street (Manhattan) is notable enough on its own, 2nd Street (Manhattan) likely is not, but there are varying degrees of room for debate for 8th Street (Manhattan), 47th Street (Manhattan) and 50th Street (Manhattan). What are the criteria for a standalone article for a Manhattan street? talk to Ytny 16:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • My comment has nothing to do with whether the street is notable; the current status of the articles are not useful. As for your question, at the very least the streets that are wider than the norm, and probably the ones with crosstown bus routes, should be notable. --NE2 19:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
    • W. 4th is definitely notable. The criteria should be historical, cultural as well as utilitarian. Not all Manhattan streets are notable, but quite a few are. There is probably a place for a List of Manhattan streets or ...minor Manhattan streets if need be. Delete 1st/2nd/3rd, Keep 13th per NE2. --Dhartung | Talk 20:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability is neither asserted not sourced. --Shirahadasha 21:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete See WP:N. If it were notable, there would be lots of published articles where it was specifically the subject. Notability is not about "All streets are notable" or "I firmly believe it is notable." Madison Avenue and Broadway in New York City are notable, because they have ben the subject of numerous articles in reliable sources. Other streets are too, They have been written about. Find several nontrivial articles about this street and cite them in the article and it could be kept. Edison 04:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Width and bus routes are hardly the criteria in Manhattan (or London or San Francisco, etc), though they may be in lesser places. I'm not aware of anything particularly notable about (or on) this one, and the article doesn't tell me of any. Place on the grid is NN, especially when the infor repeats for many streets without anything more to say. An encyclopedia article needs some content. DGG 06:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Way indiscrimate, and I forsee the day when they get clogged with trivial bits like "So-and-so lived on West Eleventh Street in the book Such-and-such" or "The Furshlinger Building is on the street." And the implication of that huge template is scary. --Calton | Talk 07:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All, specifically per Edison's reasoning. I have to say, if I were seeking to destroy Wikipedia's credibility as an encyclopedia ( as opposed to a directory ), I'd start articles like these ( along with all the Pokemon stuff ). I also feel that Calton's immediately preceding comment can probably be recast as the core of a solid case against at least some forms of eventualism. WMMartin 14:47, 7 February 2007 (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.