Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arlington Avenue (Ottawa)

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 Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arlington Avenue (Ottawa)[edit]

I am proposing that this article be deleted because it topic is not notable or important. This article is about a side-street in Ottawa. If this street were notable, then surely every street in Ottawa (of hundreds/thousands) would be notable, and that is not the case. Alaney2k (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not pass the Ottawa project guidelines for notability: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ottawa#Structure The street is not a 'city freeway, arterial or major collector' Alaney2k (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Geography --Pmedema (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To quote your link 'City streets are contested, but minor streets are not generally acceptable.' That would tend to argue the point contrary to 'Keep'. Could you clarify your !vote? Alaney2k (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- "Most numbered roadways are acceptable, but should only be created if they can be described beyond the route itself." The article satisfies that.--Pmedema (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article -is- a description of the route itself. E.g., 'crosses this road, has Glashan School on it, has a Quiznos on the corner'. There is nothing beyond the description of what you would see had you walked the route yourself. The street has no importance. Alaney2k (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would be different if it were an article on the traffic calming on Arlington Avenue. Possibly there was some debate or controversy about that Alaney2k (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reading the article, in my opinion, describes "beyond the route itself".--Pmedema (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a really major street even if I'm not mistaking, it is running behind the Ottawa Bus Terminal and connects both Bank, Kent/Lyon and Bronson all major downtown arteries Looking at the maps and some observations it's just like the similar downtown side streets such as Lisgar, Cooper, Nepean or Gilmour Streets. Not nearly as important as Slater, Albert and Somerset.--JForget 19:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The streets linked in the article (Bank Street, Kent Street, Bronson Avenue, and Booth Street) indicate that they're major arteries, but Arlington Avenue specifically says that it's a residential street. To take a parallel from Minneapolis: Hennepin Avenue is one of the major streets, but the streets it intersects (like 5th Street, 6th Street, 7th Street, and so on until its terminus at 36th Sreet) aren't notable. (And then there was the time I waited at the intersection of 23rd and Hennepin to catch a bus. I must have waited forever.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. The PROD tag should never have been removed from this one: all streets are not inherently notable. — Satori Son 13:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was perfectly reasonable to remove the prod tag to get discussion on this. In the same way that I removed it from Trium, just before you speedy deleted it under A7 and were then educated at DRV that A7 doesn't cover products and the difference between notability and an assertion of notability. You may want to review WP:CSD rather than mindlessely criticising my actions, and certainly before getting carried away with the delete button again. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you are having trouble staying focused. Do you believe Arlington Avenue is sufficiently notable or not? — Satori Son 20:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Just responding to your comment that the prod tage should never have been removed, which I guess would have given you another chance to use your delete button. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I proposed it for PROD. Is that not different than WP:CSD? Was it not procedurally correct to put a prod on a place article? Alaney2k (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not saying that it shouldn't have been prodded, I was responding to Satori who said that I should never have de-prodded it (we have a little bit of history, and he is trying to tell me that I can't interpret criteria, since he mistakenly believed that a product could be deleted under A7 - see the Trium debate at DRV). Sorry for the confusion. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per reasoning by Pmedema, the article certainly describes more than just the route the avenue takes. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How can putting "there is a quizno's on the corner" make it notable? Alaney2k (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete I cannot find any helpful sources and the article as it stands simply describes the route. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2008 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.