Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toronto-area roads

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 delete all. -R. fiend 16:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Toronto-area roads

Bulk delete the following road articles: Coxwell Avenue, Denison Street, Eastern Avenue (Toronto), Midland Avenue, Neville Park Boulevard, Transit Road. No cultural or historical significance to the GTA or Toronto. Note that this follows from recent AfDs of Toronto roads (see Warden Avenue, O'Connor Drive, Steeles Avenue, and Broadview Avenue) to try to establish a consensus position related to various road types. Mindmatrix 23:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep all. Major streets; Coxwell Road has a subway stop at Bloor Street. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
    • You think Transit Road is a major street? Oh my...for those that don't know, Transit Road connects two roads at the edge of a bus and subway stop, and is at most 500 m long. Mindmatrix 00:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Why make a person open another tab (or window) for two sentences? If someone really wants to acknowledge the existance of these streets in Wikipedia then do it one article. Describe it in, say, Road network of Toronto. Then maybe it will have some kind of order (you can do it north to south) or cohension. Roads do not exist by themselves. They are dependent upon a network of other road. Describe them as such. --maclean25 01:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, I live in Toronto, and I say delete all. Not notable. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (Contributions) 01:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, if they are permanent stubs, perhaps the should be merged somewhere. - SimonP 02:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. I defer to the Toronto expertise of Purplefeltangel. -- Grev -- Talk 04:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Bulk delete. Ignoring the fact that these pages are completely uninformative stubs, the very concept of trying to describe geographic information in prose is misguided. "Beginning at Lakeshore Boulevard near Ashbridge's Bay, the street travels north to O'Connor Drive". Do they expect someone to actually navigate streets by reading this? Who would look in an encyclopedia to find which streets intersect when there is MapQuest, Google Maps, Yahoo maps, and dozens of other web sites that show actual maps of the area? Who's going to keep this stuff updated? There are street changes in every city every year.
Look, I agree with some city street articles; those which describe the history or cultural significance of a street. Look at Commercial Drive for an example. Stuff that doesn't go out of date when there's road construction is encyclopedic, but describing directions and street intersections in text has a cost/benefit ratio approaching infinity. I shudder to think what art articles would have been if this policy was followed (The Mona Lisa is a painting with some dark green along the top, shading into a lighter green as you progress down the left side until some darker green arcs appear ...) -- Corvus 04:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator and User:Purplefeltangel, who both live in Toronto. Pilatus 09:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Those voting keep, please familiarise yourselves with What Wikipedia is not. Proto t c 12:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep roadcruft. --SPUI (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. I'm also a Torontonian, and simply can't agree with the idea that any old run-of-the-mill road deserves a Wikipedia article. To merit a Wikipedia article, a road needs to have demonstrable historical or cultural significance beyond its existence as a strip of pavement; none of these have that. Bearcat 17:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Describing city streets in Wikipedia seems silly. Unless a street is notable and worthy of special mention, it just doesn't, IMHO, merit its own article. Notable streets might include: Pennsylvania Avenue, Champs Elysee, Wall Street, Bourbon Street, Broadway, Downing Street, etc., but I seriously doubt these roads in Toronto are anything more than average, run-of-the-mill thoughfares whose only real significance are as traffic arteries. These streets seem better suited for a good map, not an encyclopedia. — Cory Maylett 18:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all sub-stub minor roads --TimPope 18:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Toronto-area roads that are not notable enough to have their own articles. Alf melmac 20:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. nn streets. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Coxwell, Eastern and Midland at least; these are primary thoroughfares of historical and cultural interest. For goodness' sake, give stubs a chance! Articles like this can really become something if they're not cut off at every turn by useless debate. Radagast 14:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, I have no problem with stubs - I've created a few myself. My nomination was based solely on the fact that I don't think these articles have the potential to be encyclopedic. Mindmatrix 14:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Roadcruft. --Carnildo 22:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete each individually unless something notable can be said about any particular street. Transit Road may be the worst offender and needs a quick deletion. ♠ DanMS 23:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Roadcruft if Kept Delete at least Transit Road thats roadcruft at its worst. --Aranda56 23:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • keep all roadcruft. Roodog2k (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Denison, Transit, and Neville Park. Abstain on the others; I'm not familiar enough with them to know if they're notable. —Psychonaut 22:50, 23 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.