Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warden Avenue

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 delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Warden Avenue

Delete generic road article. Mindmatrix 17:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete seems pretty minor. --TimPope 18:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a fairly long street, and significant to have
  a TTC station; what harm is there in covering it? David Arthur
  18:12, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've cleaned it up, added links to the subway station and line articles. Ground Zero | t 18:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Harmless, verifiable and known to a large number of people. CalJW 18:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Roads are best described as features on a map. As this article, and other recent deleted articles, have shown it is very difficult to
  system, or simply wikilink maps, articles that describe simple roads will always be inadequate. --maclean25 19:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep of course -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Even as a Torontonian, I simply don't buy the argument that a street deserves a Wikipedia article just because it exists and is verifiable; as far as I'm concerned, to deserve an article a street has to have demonstrable historic or cultural significance far beyond its mere existence as a strip of pavement. As Toronto streets go, that criterion includes
  Birchmount Road, either, and I used to live there. And no, the "Birchmount Stadium, home of the Robbie" line in Barenaked Ladies' "One Week" is not enough to lend Birchmount the necessary cultural significance.) I have to go with the delete on this. Can anybody actually explain to me why I should consider the simple existence of a street to be enough to justify an article? Bearcat 20:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep HoratioVitero 20:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is nothing of any note mentioned about this road. The fact that something exists and is verifiable, and even NPOV, doesn't mean that it automatically warrants an article. The recent debate over B-roads in GB also bears some merit in relation to this. --Icelight 20:34, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Icelight is referring to
    this debate. Mindmatrix 20:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete long or not, it's still just a street. Soltak | Talk 21:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the b-roads debate and my general view that streets do not normally warrant encyclopedic treatment argument. To wit: why the hell does Allen Road have an entry? Dottore So 22:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allen Road (which isn't a street; it's a freeway) is historically and culturally important as the sole existing remnant of the aborted
    Spadina Expressway. Bearcat 22:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Historically important? Allen Road? Come on, that's absurd! Dottore So 04:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What part of "sole existing remnant of the aborted
      Spadina Expressway" are you having trouble parsing? Bearcat 17:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Stopping the Spadina Expressway was a watershed in the development of Toronto: stopping that also blocked other proposed expressways (the Crosstown and the Scarborough), and the fact that a subway was built along that route therefore helped shape Toronto city planning, with the idea that Toronto would be a transit city, rather than an expressway city (not that we are there, but it was an important signal). The dispute bewteen the City of Toronto and the Province of Ontario over this was also an important event in shaping the city/province relationship. Yeah, it was historically important. Ground Zero | t 17:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is not just a B-road. This is a major road in Toronto with a subway station on it.
  Talk 22:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Bessarion Road has a subway station on it, too, and that doesn't make it encyclopedic. Bearcat 22:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Roads belong on maps, not in an encyclopedia unless they are notable for something other than simply existing. Gamaliel 23:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, most roads are not notable. This is one of them. Zoe 06:51, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article merely tries to describe its location. Apparently there's nothing encyclopedic to tell about it. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:26, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. It is indeed a road with a subway station on it. The subway station already has an article. If the road's only claim to fame is having the subway station on it, then any and all encyclopaedic information would already be covered in the article on the station. Wikipedia is
  t c 09:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per Zoe. Owen× ☎ 01:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep streetcruft. --SPUI (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Significant if undistinguished artery in Toronto, but continues as a regional road all the way past Georgina, Ontario city hall to Lake Simcoe. Samaritan 18:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This isn't very interesting --redstucco 08:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:Bearcat. He is from Toronto and sounds as if he knows what he is talking about. Pilatus 19:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there are other Torontonians in this debate voting to keep; I'm not sure my opinion should really be privileged in this way. Bearcat 22:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.