Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Street, Markham
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 was Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
John Street, Markham[edit]
- John Street, Markham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Nonnotable. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada Roads/Golden Horseshoe#Issues to consider for the rationale. Johnny Au (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. This is a secondary arterial in a suburban city, which doesn't even have a regional road number, and was created by an editor who largely operates under the belief that every single street in Markham should have its own article — he's even created articles on residential cul-de-sacs. Its only cited reference is a map. I should also note that this particular road is just a western continuation of the same roadway as the previously-deleted Esna Park Drive. And, in fact, an earlier article on John Street got canned in this discussion, which means this may even qualify as a G4 speedy. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Umm... The other discussion was the overall discussions for many roads in Markham. It was not just for John Street alone. Therefore, there were lack of discussions on John Street last time. Before you G4 Speedy this, I hope you can AT LEAST read this comment.
- Like you said in the other comment at Bur Oak Avenue AfD, roads with notable history may be kept. Well, I think we are missing a point here. John Street is in fact notable. John Street forms the backbone of the old and new Thornhill. John Street, if you take a look at the road signs along John Street between Bayview Avenue and Yonge Street, you can clearly see the signs denoting "Old Thornhill, circa 1794". Therefore, John Street is considered as a historical street. It forms the basis of the old hamlet of Thornhill, as settlers begin progressing up Yonge Street. Thus, John Street is completely able to satisfy the historical needs. In addition, near the road, there are many historical structures.
- If that is not enough, take a look at John Street, being a major arterial in Markham / Thornhill. It is considered as the downloaded portion of York Regional Road 71, as YRR 71 ends at Alden Road, and begins again at Centre Street near Bathurst. John Street was one of the portion chaining this connection up. Esna Park, I admit, was not notable. After all, that was my first article in Wikipedia. However, John Street is notable considering the above points. It contains historical heritage. The Canadian Roadgeek (Road talk) 00:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the WikiProject Canada Roads notice box - DigitalC (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:50k notability. Grutness...wha? 01:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)see below. Grutness...wha?[reply]
- WP:50k is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) 15:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Editors are, however, obliged to follow WP:RS and WP:N. Bearcat (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know full well that it's an essay. It's one that I wrote, and as such is the definition I use to decide whether I think something should or should not get my supporty at AfD. Many other users also use it fior the same reason. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the WP:50k essay suggests that if the road has a significant historic and geographical notability, then the article can be an exception from the 50k rule. Since John Street has historical significance (and really old too, from the 1800s), then 50k does not apply. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk)22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- True, though simply being one of the oldest streets in a city isn't by itself of significant notability. Being the former main street of a former settlement now amalgamated into Markham makes it less obviously a deletion, but whether that fact gives it enough independent notability outside Markham is questionable - and notability to the extent that it is well known outside Markham irrespective of its local familiarity is what I was getting at with WP:50k. Take, for example, the city where I live. It has close to 150,000 people, and there are three streets with WP articles on the basis of size, plus Baldwin Street, Dunedin, which makes it to article status by dint of its uniqueness. If there was something specific that made John Street unique in some way (say a famous event known as "The John Street Incident", or its prominence as the former site of Markham Town Hall), then I'd reconsider - but as it stands it doesn'y quite qualify. Grutness...wha? 00:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- However, Thornhill is popular seen as a separate community from Markham, though it is officially part of the Town of Markham and the City of Vaughan (i.e. it straddles along the Markham / Vaughan border). Therefore, I think the street is famous beyond Markham.
- There are several historic landmark on the road, for example, the Edey House, built in 1845, and moved to John Street during the widening of the nearby Yonge Street. The house is an example of the rare Regency Classical Revival style.
- Also, the Sutton Frizzel's House, built in the 1800s, now currently located at 18 John Street, its original occupants played a major role in a major historical event of the Rebellion in 1837. A plaque is also erected there by the Town of Markham, recognizing its importance. Does the Rebellions of 1837, and the other historical buildings, and its historical function as the 14th concession meet your criterium of "something specific that made John Street unique in some way"? Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) at 12:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to keep. Indeed, the Frizzel link and other features are enough to tip it over. If some notability had been shown for the street earlier, then it's likely it wouldn't have been brought up for afd - thank you for providing reasons to support it being kept! Grutness...wha? 02:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- True, though simply being one of the oldest streets in a city isn't by itself of significant notability. Being the former main street of a former settlement now amalgamated into Markham makes it less obviously a deletion, but whether that fact gives it enough independent notability outside Markham is questionable - and notability to the extent that it is well known outside Markham irrespective of its local familiarity is what I was getting at with WP:50k. Take, for example, the city where I live. It has close to 150,000 people, and there are three streets with WP articles on the basis of size, plus Baldwin Street, Dunedin, which makes it to article status by dint of its uniqueness. If there was something specific that made John Street unique in some way (say a famous event known as "The John Street Incident", or its prominence as the former site of Markham Town Hall), then I'd reconsider - but as it stands it doesn'y quite qualify. Grutness...wha? 00:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the WP:50k essay suggests that if the road has a significant historic and geographical notability, then the article can be an exception from the 50k rule. Since John Street has historical significance (and really old too, from the 1800s), then 50k does not apply. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk)22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know full well that it's an essay. It's one that I wrote, and as such is the definition I use to decide whether I think something should or should not get my supporty at AfD. Many other users also use it fior the same reason. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Editors are, however, obliged to follow WP:RS and WP:N. Bearcat (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:50k is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) 15:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deletelet's see some independent third party sources which testify to its notability. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let see if this edit satisfy both Ohconfucius and Bearcat's needs of historical context. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk)22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ohconfucius and I are not applying any special standards beyond basic Wikipedia policy around notability and verifiability in reliable sources. Kindly address the needs of Wikipedia policy, not the "needs" of individual users. Bearcat (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It satisfies WP:RS and WP:N, how's that? Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) at 21:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep based on the improvements. Note, however, that the cited sources which are important are off-line. Now that the subject's place in history is made clear, I'm sure someone can supply more historical references. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It satisfies WP:RS and WP:N, how's that? Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) at 21:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ohconfucius and I are not applying any special standards beyond basic Wikipedia policy around notability and verifiability in reliable sources. Kindly address the needs of Wikipedia policy, not the "needs" of individual users. Bearcat (talk) 12:58, 11 June 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.