Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton Road
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was Keep. pschemp | talk 20:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Brighton Road
Page seems well meaning but the road appears to lack enencyclopedic merit. Claims of notability have been promised, but not (yet) delivered. I'm prepared to withdraw this, but not without some reasonable evidence of notability. Sorry, Ben Aveling 09:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Although new, this article is not bad now and can only improve over time. As one of the longest roads in London it is an obvious keeper. -- JJay 09:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per JJay. Articles on Longest roads in London are considered notable, and many London roads are notable. --Terence Ong 10:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep at least as worthy of an article as many of the other roads with articles. JPD (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, formerly a Roman Road, asserts notability, not roadcruft. Proto||type 10:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Terenceong - the AfD on Longest roads in London was a good one. Major roads are notable. MLA 11:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, as 6.4 miles is not exceptionally long and the only other reason for having an article about it is that it is in London. The main street of a small to medium sized city is more notable, but we don't have articles about them. -- Kjkolb 12:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, this seems like a notable road. JIP | Talk 12:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The AfD on 100 Longest roads in london was no consensus, not keep. And even if a list is encyclopedic, that doesn't make every member of the list encyclopedic. There are probably tens of thousands of roman roads, and probably hundreds of thousands of major roads at least 6.4 miles long. Is every such road notable? If not, and if this road is actually notable, please explain why. Regards, Ben Aveling 13:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- Wow. Are you guys voting keep actually saying you want a seperate article for every different name that a given bit of road goes by? If we must have road articles, why not merge them into the main article on the road? This just seems.. I don't know, incredibly crufty? Wikipedia is not an address book. Delete unless some remotely reasonable reason for including this specific stretch of road as a seperate article can be given. Friday (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- We have an article on Brighton Road because it is one of the longest roads in London. Period. That is standard practice for road articles, which many voters here, who work on road articles, fully understand. Following your logic, we should delete Broadway (New York City) because we have an article on U.S. Route 9. Or maybe it's the reverse. Furthermore, since you seem to be arguing for a merge, and have even gone so far as to place a merge tag on the article, why vote delete? That just seems so incredibly inconsistent. Roads have a curious habit of changing names or becoming known under multiple names. See U.S. Route 41 and Tamiami Trail. In answer to your question, yes we must have road articles. Why? Because we are trying to provide people with the information they need. Wikipedia is not an address book- it's an encyclopedia. On a side note, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from using derogatory slang to slam editors that are merely trying to expand the contents at wikipedia. -- JJay 19:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yet again, I see AfD is dominated by faulty logic. You are not comparing like for like. A UK equivalent of your first comparison is A40 and Oxford Street, and your second the naming of the M25 as "London Orbital Motorway". Because Brighton Road is on a par with neither Oxford Street nor the M25, your argument fails. I object to your branding of this as "trying to expand the contents at wikipedia" (sic), when perhaps instead of junk like the names of individual streets in London (in case you hadn't noticed, Wikipedia is not the London A-Z, nor is it a guide to genealogy or local history), perhaps you might want to try some activities which would actually contribute something worthwhile, welcome, and (more importantly) necessary. Take a look at {{opentask}} or WP:MEA. 20:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.28.195 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'd rather work on road articles. But take a look at Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. -- JJay 20:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- When did wikipedia stop being a guide to local history? Kappa 12:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Local history can be encylopedic, but not all such is. Bascially, it needs to be significant somehow - a particularly notable piece of local history, that has more than local interest. We keep being told that this road is notable, but really, I think we need more details of that so that we can understand why the road is more significant than so many other roads. Regards, Ben Aveling 13:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see that wikipedia can pretend to be a comprehensive encylopedia and not tell me about the history of the areas it covers. Kappa 13:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Local history can be encylopedic, but not all such is. Bascially, it needs to be significant somehow - a particularly notable piece of local history, that has more than local interest. We keep being told that this road is notable, but really, I think we need more details of that so that we can understand why the road is more significant than so many other roads. Regards, Ben Aveling 13:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yet again, I see AfD is dominated by faulty logic. You are not comparing like for like. A UK equivalent of your first comparison is A40 and Oxford Street, and your second the naming of the M25 as "London Orbital Motorway". Because Brighton Road is on a par with neither Oxford Street nor the M25, your argument fails. I object to your branding of this as "trying to expand the contents at wikipedia" (sic), when perhaps instead of junk like the names of individual streets in London (in case you hadn't noticed, Wikipedia is not the London A-Z, nor is it a guide to genealogy or local history), perhaps you might want to try some activities which would actually contribute something worthwhile, welcome, and (more importantly) necessary. Take a look at {{opentask}} or WP:MEA. 20:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.28.195 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- We have an article on Brighton Road because it is one of the longest roads in London. Period. That is standard practice for road articles, which many voters here, who work on road articles, fully understand. Following your logic, we should delete Broadway (New York City) because we have an article on U.S. Route 9. Or maybe it's the reverse. Furthermore, since you seem to be arguing for a merge, and have even gone so far as to place a merge tag on the article, why vote delete? That just seems so incredibly inconsistent. Roads have a curious habit of changing names or becoming known under multiple names. See U.S. Route 41 and Tamiami Trail. In answer to your question, yes we must have road articles. Why? Because we are trying to provide people with the information they need. Wikipedia is not an address book- it's an encyclopedia. On a side note, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from using derogatory slang to slam editors that are merely trying to expand the contents at wikipedia. -- JJay 19:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per JJay. Not my leg 19:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Per JJay. Jcuk 00:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep please the road is historiclly important. Yuckfoo 20:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. OK, this stuff gets a little "crufty", but it's a decent-quality brief article for what it is, and keeping it doesn't hurt anything. *Dan T.* 04:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, per JJay. Kappa 12:22, 6 March 2006 (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.
