Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flemington Circle
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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was, just barely, no consensus, leaning towards delete. (10 delete, 4 keep, 2 merge, discounting User:Earthian's vote). Robert 22:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Flemington Circle
This is one of three traffic circles in Flemington, New Jersey, a village of 4000 people. Pilatus 18:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Now hold on there. This is definitely a notable road feature, if not an infamous one. Technically, it's in Raritan Township, not Flemington. And, you can't go purely by the population of the town. In New Jersey all of the towns seem to run together. There are many, many more than 4,000 people living in the area. Al 19:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC) Keep
- How am I supposed to know from the article? Here in Britain there are tens of thousands of roundabouts, dozens in each town. The article should mention why that particular roundabout would be of importance to a non-local, otherwise it has to go. Is it the first in New Jersey or a known accident blackspot? Please note that I am aware of two British roundabouts in here, the Magic Roundabout (Swindon) and the Magic Roundabout (Hemel Hempstead).
129.215.194.205Pilatus 19:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)- The article as it stands is a stub, and therefore patently incomplete. If we were to delete all incomplete articles on Wikipedia as soon as we noticed them, a new article would be a rare thing. And the fact that no one has seen fit to add a comparable set of articles on British roundabouts is neither here nor there. It's not the fault of this article. The correct solution is to add them, not to delete other articles out of some misplaced sense of "fairness". TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Add highway junctions? This is insane! Pilatus 21:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Why not? We have webcomics here, for instance. I guarantee you that more people have been directly affected by the Somerville Circle than have ever even read a webcomic. When people moved to the area from out-of-state, negoitating the traffic circles was often the very first thing they'd remark on.TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- But they wouldn't remark on this particular exhibit, unless they were local to the area. There is a section (than can probably be expanded) in Traffic circle on the Twenties-built NJ roundabouts, that's where the information belongs. And I have seen a slew of webcomics on VfD in the last few days. Pilatus 23:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Why not? We have webcomics here, for instance. I guarantee you that more people have been directly affected by the Somerville Circle than have ever even read a webcomic. When people moved to the area from out-of-state, negoitating the traffic circles was often the very first thing they'd remark on.TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- I think they probably would, but you've never had to take the Flemington Circle to get to anywhere I've lived. But I think I agree with you that a section (or article) discussing them collectively and singling out prominent ones is a good idea; better than seperate articles. I had hoped for some future historical information which I do not have access to, but was assured was available, and have been somewhat disappointed that they have not been developed further. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- It is sometimes amazing to me the things that get to have the "notable" tag around here (e.g., List of fish on stamps of the Falkland Islands). Anyway, I would support Traffic circles in New Jersey as TCC describes. It is a unique feature of New Jersey roadways. It might do to have an article on that unique Jersey road feature of the jughandle too, but none of them are named nor are any particularly notorious. Al 12:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Add highway junctions? This is insane! Pilatus 21:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- The article as it stands is a stub, and therefore patently incomplete. If we were to delete all incomplete articles on Wikipedia as soon as we noticed them, a new article would be a rare thing. And the fact that no one has seen fit to add a comparable set of articles on British roundabouts is neither here nor there. It's not the fault of this article. The correct solution is to add them, not to delete other articles out of some misplaced sense of "fairness". TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- How am I supposed to know from the article? Here in Britain there are tens of thousands of roundabouts, dozens in each town. The article should mention why that particular roundabout would be of importance to a non-local, otherwise it has to go. Is it the first in New Jersey or a known accident blackspot? Please note that I am aware of two British roundabouts in here, the Magic Roundabout (Swindon) and the Magic Roundabout (Hemel Hempstead).
- Delete. It isn't a notable road feature. Quale 20:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a very heavily travelled roadway, one of the few remaining intact traffic circles in New Jersey, and certainly is therefore notable. Besides, to call Flemington a "village of 4000 people", as if those who lived in the borough were the only local inhabitants, is to ignore the rather dense suburban housing of the surrounding area. But even if the borough were all there were to it, it's a historically significant locale. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Article does not establish notability. --Carnildo 23:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Article does not establish or even assert notability. --Stormie 02:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- The largest traffic in Flemington, New Jersey is NOT my idea of encyclopedic, even for the NewJerseyPedia. Delete. --Calton | Talk 02:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree with the nominator. Zach (Sound Off) 05:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - our mission is to compile knowledge, not just any facts. --Pjacobi 09:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into Flemington, New Jersey - even if it's too minor for it's own article, it's at least interesting in the context of it's location. Alphax τεχ 09:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Merge, as per Alphax. -- user:zanimum
- Keep or merge this fine example of roadcruft. Cruft is not a bad thing. --SPUI (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, as the other traffic circles of this sort. -R. fiend 19:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This one is interesting and notable. I would not object to a merge to the appropriate locality. Unfocused 19:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable --TimPope 21:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Please remember civility. Calling the good faith contributions of other editors "ridiculous" is not civil. If Dr. Who fans can indulge their every tiny interest on Wikipedia, I don't see the problem with granting a little of the same courtesy to traffic engineers and those who are interested in that subject. Unfocused 18:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Don't make this personal. The Doctor Who wikiproject actually urges limits on content, in line with WP:FICT and other guidelines oft ignored by inclusionists. It would be nice if other areas of content were as restrained. --TimPope 20:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- It isn't personal at all. Claims of "notability" and "not notable" can only ever be judged on a relative scale by personal POV. Civil engineering topics are, in my opinion, far more notable than obscure details of a British television series that only fans will recognize. I never proposed deleting such Dr. Who trivia, only that the reasons for keeping it are similar to the reasons for keeping items like this fine article. We're having this discussion because we have POV differences, and Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV. Unfocused 21:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- It is personal because you based what you said on what you perceive about me and how I edit wikipedia. It's a matter of scale and if you think a traffic circle is a major piece of civil engineering, that's fine, we are all entitled to opinions. I find it extremely minor. What you call "obscure details" have so far formed three featured articles, because there is much to write about a television programme that has been around for over 40 years. This traffic circle is hardly in the same league of fame, which had it not been given a name noone would know of. I have the same opinion of the "obscure detail" of Doctor Who and if you don't believe me you can check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Constantine. --TimPope 22:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- It still isn't personal, it's a simple comparison of POV. If you hadn't called someone else's good faith contribution "ridiculous", I wouldn't need to compare POVs to make a point. You're welcome to your own opinion of what is appropriate for an article, but your incivility is very unwelcome. Again, I don't really care how many featured articles come from your interest set, but calling someone else's good faith contribution "ridiculous" is just plain wrong. Unfocused 23:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- From WP:CIVIL: starting a comment: "Not to make this personal, but..." is a serious breach of civility. --TimPope 17:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- It still isn't personal nor is it uncivil. If you're not willing to calmly and rationally debate the relative notability of subjects you're interested in as compared to those that others are interested in, then simply don't use "ridiculous" or "not notable" as your argument to delete. Comparison of our POVs regarding notability, when notability is used as the reason to advocate deletion of retention of an article, is neither personal, nor an attack; its the only avenue available for debate. You've taken words from a policy completely out of context. Unfocused 19:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- I regret my original choice of words, but non-notable is not uncivil. I found your comments personal, whether you think they were or not. Csernica found my original comment personal and I have apologised. I am sorry this has continued to escalate, may we stop now? --TimPope 16:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- It still isn't personal nor is it uncivil. If you're not willing to calmly and rationally debate the relative notability of subjects you're interested in as compared to those that others are interested in, then simply don't use "ridiculous" or "not notable" as your argument to delete. Comparison of our POVs regarding notability, when notability is used as the reason to advocate deletion of retention of an article, is neither personal, nor an attack; its the only avenue available for debate. You've taken words from a policy completely out of context. Unfocused 19:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- From WP:CIVIL: starting a comment: "Not to make this personal, but..." is a serious breach of civility. --TimPope 17:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- You said "ridiculous", and that made it a personal insult directed at me, who contributed the article in the first place. You protests to the contrary don't change that. I was willing to ignore it as long as you didn't try to defend your bad behavior. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- My apologies to you Csernica. --TimPope 17:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- It still isn't personal, it's a simple comparison of POV. If you hadn't called someone else's good faith contribution "ridiculous", I wouldn't need to compare POVs to make a point. You're welcome to your own opinion of what is appropriate for an article, but your incivility is very unwelcome. Again, I don't really care how many featured articles come from your interest set, but calling someone else's good faith contribution "ridiculous" is just plain wrong. Unfocused 23:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- It is personal because you based what you said on what you perceive about me and how I edit wikipedia. It's a matter of scale and if you think a traffic circle is a major piece of civil engineering, that's fine, we are all entitled to opinions. I find it extremely minor. What you call "obscure details" have so far formed three featured articles, because there is much to write about a television programme that has been around for over 40 years. This traffic circle is hardly in the same league of fame, which had it not been given a name noone would know of. I have the same opinion of the "obscure detail" of Doctor Who and if you don't believe me you can check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Constantine. --TimPope 22:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- It isn't personal at all. Claims of "notability" and "not notable" can only ever be judged on a relative scale by personal POV. Civil engineering topics are, in my opinion, far more notable than obscure details of a British television series that only fans will recognize. I never proposed deleting such Dr. Who trivia, only that the reasons for keeping it are similar to the reasons for keeping items like this fine article. We're having this discussion because we have POV differences, and Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV. Unfocused 21:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Don't make this personal. The Doctor Who wikiproject actually urges limits on content, in line with WP:FICT and other guidelines oft ignored by inclusionists. It would be nice if other areas of content were as restrained. --TimPope 20:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Please remember civility. Calling the good faith contributions of other editors "ridiculous" is not civil. If Dr. Who fans can indulge their every tiny interest on Wikipedia, I don't see the problem with granting a little of the same courtesy to traffic engineers and those who are interested in that subject. Unfocused 18:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, this is just another bad faith nomination by User:Pilatus. Earthian 23:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC) User registered on September 27 and made contributions to four articles and their AfD pages. Special:Contributions/Earthian Pilatus 17:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Another Traffic Circle that is nn --JAranda | yeah 21:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn --redstucco 08:40, 3 October 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.
