Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Edward Avenue (Vancouver)
- 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 merge to the article fails our policy of verifiability (it is unsourced and thus does cannot demonstrate notability). The keep arguments, while asserting its status, otherwise fail to refute or address these issues with policy-or-guideline-based arguments; however, should sourcing be added to the article to help assuage the aforementioned concerns, the eventual redirect is free to be reversed and another discussion can occur at AfD over its notability as demonstrated by those sources should someone feel it necessary to start one. slakr\ talk / 02:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)]
King Edward Avenue (Vancouver)
No proof of notability. OKNoah (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep This is a major thoroughfare in Vancouver. I believe the prevailing consensus is that major thoroughfares in major cities are notable while sidestreets are generally not (excepting for ones with substantial independant coverage). ThemFromSpace 16:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see any special exceptions for streets in Wikipedia:Notability --OKNoah (talk) 04:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Numbered highways in national or state/provincial systems are what are considered notable. Simple streets pass GNG or die. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Not only is this a major thoroughfare in a major city, but it's the location and namesake for the King Edward Station in the SkyTrain system. Such investment is only made at locations that are considered vital in a major transportation system.--Oakshade (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)]
- I don't an assumption about investment makes it notable by Wikipedia standards. --OKNoah (talk) 04:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Notability is not inherited from the SkyTrain station, either from its location or its naming (people who have ships named after them, for instance, do not become notable for that). - The Bushranger One ping only 21:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)]
- It would be impossible for there not to be extremely extensive government reports with analysis, traffic and pedestrian patterns and the impact on the area of this street by having a station on this street, thus passing even WP:GNG. There is far too much investment and civic importance for such reports not to be done.--Oakshade (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think those are secondary sources, for one. --OKNoah (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Internal government reports are primary sources. The notability of a road is demonstrated by media coverage in secondary sources, not internal bureaucratic analysis. Bearcat (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)]
- It would be impossible for there not to be extremely extensive government reports with analysis, traffic and pedestrian patterns and the impact on the area of this street by having a station on this street, thus passing even WP:GNG. There is far too much investment and civic importance for such reports not to be done.--Oakshade (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to WP:GNG. However, there may be some here that can be added to the section of the city's article regarding transportation, and redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Definitely notable. This street is named after talk) 02:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 20:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep as it's a major thoroughfare in Vancouver... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- As has been noted repeatedly above, simply being a major thoroughfare in a city is not, in and of itself, a sufficient claim of unsourced article. The notability of a city street is demonstrated by the use of reliable sources which demonstrate that the street has been the subject of substantial coverage in multiple independent sources, and not just by being able to prove that the street exists. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)]
- As has been noted repeatedly above, simply being a major thoroughfare in a city is not, in and of itself, a sufficient claim of
- City streets, as a rule, are not entitled to an automatic presumption of notability just because they exist, or even because they're "major thoroughfares", if the article in question does not actually cite any WP:ROADOUTCOMES, which explicitly states that an article that explains and provides valid relevant citations for the social, cultural, historical or political context of a road in depth is more likely to survive AfD than one which merely describes the road's physical characteristics. So while I suppose it might be possible that an article could be written about this road which actually satisfied our inclusion rules for roads, this article as written ain't it. Delete; no prejudice against future recreation if somebody can write and source a good new article about it which gives any real context for why the road should be considered notable. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)]
- Merge and redirect somewhere, possibly Stuartyeates (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2014 (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.