Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benning Road

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. Not being special is not a reason to delete, nor is being heavily traveled a reason to keep. But in the end, there are enough reliable sources to show its notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benning Road

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable road. Dough 48 72 03:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~or merge into the list of DC's streets~~. This one is not notable on its own. Imzadi 1979 → 03:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's major enough to have a Washington Metro station - Benning Road (Washington Metro). And the Washington Post has given significant coverage to it, calling it "heavily traveled." [1][2] And there's even now going to be a streetcar line on it.[3] All evidence of a significant street. The nom needs to explain why they think an article should be deleted. --Oakshade (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to me that lots of streets have underground stations, that does notm make them notable. Your popst links only establish that it exisits, they are not significant coverage indication that this road is any more improtant then say London road rayliegh. Nor can I see why the street having a tram line makes it notable. I might be wrong but I thought to be notable a street had to have something about it that made it special, not just a bit ordianry.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, notability is not about being special it is abot being covered in reliable sources.

Its actualy about reciving significantcoverage in RS to establish notability (IE it to recive more coiverage then any other street might). I see no coverage of this kindSlatersteven (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a common misconception about notability on Wikipedia. There is no requirement to show that a topic is special in some way. We cover all prime-ministers, not just the special ones. We cover all species, not just the special ones. What notability requires is that the sources tell us something about the topic so that we have material for an article. That's what we have in this case and so there seems to be no great difficulty in putting an article together. Per our editing policy, we keep such material once we have made a start and so deletion is not appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So we cover all human beings, not just the special ones? All the musical ensembles, not just the special ones? There's absolutely nothing in WP:N that backs up your seemingly idiosyncratic view of street notability. Badger Drink (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case in that we should cover ALL roads and not just the special ones, we mind as well create an article for 3rd Street in Wyoming, Delaware. Dough 48 72 15:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a D.C.-area native, I can, without a doubt in my heart, say that many roads around here are heavily travelled. There's nothing particularly special, unique, or historic about Benning Road. Having a Metro station that happens to be on it is far from significant - in fact, the name of the station actually says more for the lack of signficant landmarks nearby than anything else. D.C. subway stations are usually named for local landmarks ("Gallery Place", not "7th, 9th, F, G, and H streets"), the fact that they couldn't find anything more interesting to name this station speaks volumes. Benning Road is mentioned in the occasional local traffic report, as it's part of the route one would take to get from the Beltway to the Atlas Theatre district (H Street) via I-295, but this is far from notability. As Benning Road lacks any distinguishing features, an article would necessarily be nothing more than a travel guide of sorts - fine for WikiTravel, but not an encyclopedia. Badger Drink (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a citation to a source which covers the character and history of this place in detail. There are hundreds of sources to be sifted through and I see no evidence above that any of this work has been performed as required by our deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidance of notability. I see lots of trivial referances. You new referance is a book about Washigton, that does not establish that street is any more bntable thgen any other street in washinigton.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Trivial" is defined by WP:N as a "one sentence mention." The scope of sources about this road are way beyond "one sentence mentions" and are primarily about his street. Not every street in Washington has received the coverage this one has. --Oakshade (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Slatersteven. The sources only confirm that the road exists - the same could be said of pretty much any and every given road in the world. Mere existence does not satisfy WP:N. Badger Drink (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any given road does not have as much coverage as this one has. Certainly, many roads have as much coverage as this one has and are just as notable. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. If thousands of similar topics pass WP:N as this one does, then we can have thousands of articles.--Oakshade (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Oakshade says, if the Washington Post calls it heavily trafficked, then its notable as streets go. Dream Focus 10:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are several congested roads in my area that do not have articles. Dough 48 72 18:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: My knowledge of D.C. roads is not great and I was a bit on the fence because I know it has tons of busy roads. However, I did some digging and have started a history section to the article. The road has a history as an important eastern route in and out of Washington. (Also, if someone has access to this via a library Local roads scholars give streets' history, I would appreciate seeing it, because it appears to mention Benning Road).--Milowent (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has plenty of sources to support its notability, and it seems to be a pretty well-traveled road. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many roads in major cities attract significant coverage in reliable sources, so we can have articles about them, per the general notability guideline. In this case the hundreds of sources found by the Google News, Books and Scholar searches linked in the nomination clearly amount to the level of coverage required. Some editors don't seem to understand that this is an encyclopedia, not the Guinness Book of Records or the National Enquirer, so we don't cover only the exceptional and the sensational. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the sources now present in the article. Novalid reason for deletion has been given in the nomination or the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While this road is not particularly notable for being heavily trafficked (We would have an article about over half of the roads in DC if that was the case), the introduction of a streetcar line, as well as the multiple sources found seem to demonstrate notability. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 02:06, 10 May 2010 (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.