Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Storrow Drive

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 keep. John254 19:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Storrow Drive

Storrow Drive (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Well, it's a parkway. There is no assertion of notability except for "The road is notorious for speeding and aggressive driving because police enforcement along the road is difficult without a breakdown lane." I left a note on the talk page, and prodded it 35 hours later. After two minutes, the prod was removed by NE2 with the edit summary "This is a clearly notable road." I think not. It's a parkway. Yes, it has many google hits, but that doesn't say squat. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

*Delete, no secondary sources cited to establish notability, and I can't find any. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 11:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Change to keep due to several secondary sources provided. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 08:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a freeway that carries large amounts of traffic. Sources do exist, largely in the form of contemporary newspaper articles. Here's one source of some information: [1] There are a few more in [2]. --NE2 11:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment First one has some good information, and might work in conjunction with others, but the rest on the search appear to be name-drops. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 11:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't have access to the Boston Globe archives, and the Google News Archive only has them indexed back to 1986. I'm sure there were hundreds of articles specifically about the road when it was being built. It opened June 16, 1951, if you have access and care to look. --NE2 11:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • There are a lot of news. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia though. And while the article may be well sourced, it still needs an assertion of notability. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
        • It doesn't need "an assertion of notability"; it needs most people in this discussion to agree that it's notable enough for an article. There's a difference. --NE2 12:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
          • It certainly does need as assertation of notability. Without one, it might even qualify for speedy deletion. EliminatorJR 13:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
            • Under what criterion? --NE2 14:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
              • Because no assertion of notability IS a crierion for speedy deletion of anything that fails WP:N Having said that, this one is looking like it is notable now, so that's a moot point. EliminatorJR 15:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
                • I don't see any criteria on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion that match "no assertion of notability". --NE2 15:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
                  • Look here WP:SPEEDY under "Non-notable subjects with their importance asserted". EliminatorJR 16:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
                    • Those are "non-criteria" that are not to be used for speedy-deleting articles. --NE2 16:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
                      • Read it again. "Articles that have obviously non-notable subjects are still not eligible for speedy deletion unless the article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. As I say, though, it's irrelevant here now anyway. EliminatorJR 19:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
                        • I think you should read the actual criteria: "An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." --NE2 02:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Even the New York Times had an article, albeit a short one, on its opening: [3] --NE2 12:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: can the claim about speeding be substantiated. Without it, the article pretty much only states it exists. Perhaps the construction has some notable aspects to it? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It was an early freeway with outdated aspects like left exits. It took up parkland and resulted in more landfill being added to the river to create the Charles River Esplanade.^[1] It really is one of the most major highways in Boston.^[2] --NE2 12:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a major road with an ADT of 100,000. It is also part of the National Highway System. It is one of the early limited access roads in the US that were originally designed for pleasure driving. --Polaron | Talk 14:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Save for I-90 (which doesn't really qualify), Storrow Drive is Boston's major east-west thoroughfare. It is also a state highway, the notability of which is long established by the many thousands of state highways with Wikipedia articles. And, frankly, with over a hundred thousand Google hits, anyone who claims not to have found sources to establish the highway's notability hasn't bothered to try in the first place. RGTraynor 15:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. One of the more prominent Boston landmarks. The article is a stub now but should develop with time/research. Wikipedia is not paper.Ajkessel | Talk 15:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, a major thoroughfare through the city of Boston. In addition to plenty of media coverage, the fact that every major traffic site for Boston monitors the road further underscores its notability. Krimpet 20:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Polaron and others above. There are plenty of sources available; cleanup/stub is not a reason to delete. schi ^talk 20:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per NE2, Parloron and others. An important freeway/expressway in major metropolitan area. --Oakshade 01:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's Boston's equivalent to Manhattan's Franklin D. Roosevelt East River Drive, BTW. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Important arteries deserve articles. Fg2 07:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Obviously important highway in Boston. WP:SNOW anyone? --Holderca1 18:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No way, I still haven't dug out my car from last week! Oh, wait, WP:SNOW! Yeah, I think so. --

Kendrick7^talk 20:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Per above. --Thisisbossi 12:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Department of Conservation and Recreation, Charles River Reservation
2. ^ SmarTraveler Boston Map (note "Charles River Roads")

• Delete The references show that it was built. That satisfies WP:V , but there is not enough to satisfy notability other than passing references or trivial references to someone putting up a sign to promote the local baseball team. Inkpaduta 14:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment the road and it's history has been covered my multiple, reliable, non-trivial sources; I'm not sure you can dismiss books about Boston as trivial. BTW, the Boston Red Sox have a following throughout the New England region, and aren't merely a "local baseball team." -- Kendrick7^talk 22:23, 23 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.