Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lakewood Boulevard

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 NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 20:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lakewood Boulevard

nn street. There is absolutely nothing on this street that requires that it have a wikipedia article. User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It is a major artery in the Los Angeles area, and there isn't any reason why it shouldn't be an entry in a paperless encyclopedia. It's as important as any of the L.A. freeways about which there are articles. We aren't talking about a small road here. Moncrief 06:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • REDIRECT to California State Route 19. There is already an article about this boulevard under its other name, California State Route 19. Or do the deletionists want to delete that article too, and all the other articles about individual California state highways, some of which are arguably not (gasp!) "major roads"? Moncrief 20:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It ain't that major a road. Do we want roads on Hawthorne Boulevard, Artesia Boulevard, Torrance Boulevard, ad nauseum? User:Zoe|^(talk) 07:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• All of which are in my old neck of the woods, BTW. FWIW, Hawthorne is part of CA-213, Artesia is part of CA-91 and Torrance Boulevard is...Torrance Boulevard. Big streets; not worth an article at all. You over in the South Bay, Zoe? - Lucky 6.9 22:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • • I don't see why not. What harm does it cause Wikipedia if they're accurate and informative articles? Moncrief 07:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
      • So where do you draw the line? Or do you? Should I just get out my Thomas Guide and start with A in the index and create an article on every entry in the index? User:Zoe|^(talk) 07:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Zoe, why haven't you offered up California State Route 19 for deletion if the road is so non-notable? It's an article about this very road, aka Lakewood Boulevard. Moncrief 16:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Verifiability is not a "keep"-criteria; it's an absolute minimum demanded of all articles. That only means that we don't delete it on the spot as a hoax or an unsubstantiated rumor. This is exactly why there's a criteria stating that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. / Peter ^Isotalo 11:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. (a) Wikipedia is not a travel guide. (b) Roads belong on maps. While words may be technically accurate they do not communicate well the factors that contribute to roads, unless they notable for something other than simply existing. (c) This is simply a piece of an infrastructure system (L.A. freeway?). The infrastructure system should get an article, not the individual pieces. --maclean25 07:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • No, it's not a part of a freeway, it's just an nn surface street. User:Zoe|^(talk) 08:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as not demonstrating why Lakewood Boulevard is interesting and notable. (I am tempted to write a long, well reference, interesting article on some no-name, nn street, though, just for the fun of it...) JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

*Keep. Its linked to by "Major freeways/highways intersecting Interstate 405 (northwest to southeast)" from the Interstate 405 (California) article, and most of those have separate articles too. Astrokey44 10:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Please compare this to official inclusion criteria instead of other, equally non-notable road articles. / Peter ^Isotalo 11:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh actually change my vote to redirect to California State Route 19 since its just another name for that road.Astrokey44 03:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per maclean25 Pilatus 10:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Roadcruft. Delink it, please. / Peter ^Isotalo 11:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, major artery in the Los Angeles area, wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 16:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, roads are not inherently notable, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Lord Bob 20:01, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to California State Route 19. - Lucky 6.9 22:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all non-notable roads. A redirect would be unwise since there is more than one Lakewood Boulevard on the planet, and I don't want WP to disambiguate 100 non-notable roads named Lakewood Blvd. Quale 00:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually I challenge you to find any other Lakewood Boulevard on the planet. There is a Lakewood, Colorado, but no Lakewood Boulevard there. Find me another, please. Meanwhile, if we don't redirect to the existing article on this artery, someone could write another "Lakewood Boulevard" article, and we'll have to go through this whole thing again. Moncrief 00:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Lakewood Blvd, Park Forest, IL, East and West Lakewood Blvds, Holland, MI, and a Lakewood Boulevard in Braeside Vic Australia. With 5 minutes work, I found you three others. There are probably a lot more, but that's a good start. What now? Also, please explain which of these (and any other Lakewood Blvds that escaped my cursory search) deserves a redirect from Lakewood Boulevard and why. Quale 07:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
    • This is a little embarrassing. I live a few miles away from Lakewood Blvd, Madison, WI. Since it's in a bigger city, Lakewood Blvd, Dallas, TX might be better known. There's also a Lakewood Boulevard in Winnipeg, Manitoba and Lakewood Blvd., Schaumburg, IL and Lakewood Blvd., Naples, FL. There are NE and NW Lakewood Blvds, Independence, MO and SE Lakewood Blvd, Topeka, KS. I do admit that when I said 100 I was exagerating for effect. Quale 08:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If Lakewood Boulevard is so non-notable, I don't know how I came to have heard of it here in London. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • So what if you've heard of it? I repeat: Voting "keep" because you've heard of something is no more a keep criterion, than voting "delete" because you haven't heard of is a valid delete criterion. And there are lots of streets in London that I've heard of, that doesn't mean they deserve articles. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Moncrief. Guettarda 01:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. If there are others, then disambig. --SPUI (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, no real need for a merge. Proto t c 09:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge (and redirect, of course) as per Moncrief. ··gracefool |☺ 17:28, 25 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.