Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenhaven Drive

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 01:51, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greenhaven Drive

• Does anyone think it is logical for Wikipedia to have articles on local roads that are not designated as higways with numbers?? I say this article should be deleted if no one can prove that this road merits an article. Georgia guy 00:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• Strong delete' Utterly non-notable and completely unencyclopedic as written, and doesn't even make sense as we are told that "Greenhaven Drive" ends at "Greenhaven Drive", which seems at best solipsistic and at worst just plain wrong. Apparently from just someone who wants their street to have an encyclopedia article. Rlquall 02:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Most local roads are not encyclopedically notable. Quale 04:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic. JeremyA 04:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• "Does anyone think it is logical for Wikipedia to have articles on local roads that are not designated as higways with numbers??" Yes. But this is just a suburban arterial, one of thousands of boring roads. Delete unless expanded to include historic details, or merged into an article about the suburb (as it is a road of decent importance in the context of the suburb). --SPUI (talk) 05:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable road. utcursch | talk 06:02, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The article gives no impression that this road is of any notability whatsoever. Average Earthman 09:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, and the article is so poor it would qualify anyway --Cynical 13:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Steamroll all non-notable roads. Master Thief Garrett 15:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with jackhammer. Most local roads are not encyclopedically notable, and the article gives no impression that this road is of any notability whatsoever. Probably road-vanity. (Otherwise why is the substub present?) Perhaps the road ends at itself because it has a P shape? If it's just a cul-de-sac then the article sounds bot-like. 205.247.102.130 18:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Above vote was mine, not logged in. Article was created by anon, along with a high school also VfD'ed today. Only not-VfD'ed article that links to this one is Pocket-Greenhaven_(Sacramento, California). Barno 18:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There's been a lot of debate on roads of late, but I think even the hardliners for keeping roads would be hard pressed to find a reason to keep this one. -R. fiend 20:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I live in the Sacramento area, and although I know of this road, it isn't even notable around here. But where are all of the "keep it because it's verifiable" crowd? RickK 22:45, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Real road, information is verifiable. (You rang?) Klonimus 02:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • But is it notable? THAT is the key. This isn't exactly the Appian Way, which I would *still* consider deleting if it wasn't comprised of material that is--verifiability be damned--USEFUL. Master Thief Garrett 03:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
• I'd normally say to merge with Sacramento but there really isn't any content here to merge, so delete. Kelly Martin 00:50, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and mention in Sacramento. From the map it does appear to be part of a long corridor, possibly a historically significant road, but the article doesn't have any details. Gazpacho 02:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete = not notable. NoAccount 02:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.