Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of car-free places

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. The problems with definition are acknowledged, but there is consensus that a salvageable list exists here. I encourage all participants attempt to address scope issues via talk page discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of car-free places

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

First, let me say very clearly I have no objection at all to the concept of 'car-free' areas, and in certain contexts I'm very much in favour of it. But this list is just a mess, which has been pointed out many times on the talk page for years since it was created in 2004 (the creator stopped editing Wikipedia in 2005), and its many issues have never been addressed. I'll outline them here:

There is no clear scope to this list, because
- There is no clear definition of 'carfree/car-free', nor 'place'. Note that the interwiki to French Wikipedia is fr:Liste d'îles sans voiture, that is, "List of islands without car(s)". 'Islands' is a much more restricted scope than 'places'.
- There is disagreement about whether certain places are really "car-free" or not. Brouillard 2014 excludes Venice (because automobile access is possible via a bridge), even though the lead section of this List with a photo of a square in Venice cites it as a prime example of a large entirely car-free city, while its entry confusingly states: Entire city is completely car-free, except at the bus station square. Meanwhile, Venice is the very first example mentioned under Pedestrian_zone#Car_free_towns,_cities_and_regions: Motor traffic stops at the car park at the head of the viaduct from the mainland, and water transport or walking takes over from there. However, motor vehicles are allowed on the nearby Lido. Meanwhile over at Carfree city#Venice, none of these exceptions are mentioned. For some reason, plenty of texts on English Wikipedia (usually unsourced), as well as some sources outside Wikipedia, want to claim Venice as an example of an "entirely car-free city", but then have to make all kinds of concessions why that is not entirely true.
- It is unclear whether 'pedestrian zone', 'parking-space-free' (stellplatzfrei) zones, limited-access zones etc. also count as 'car-free', and thus whether they should be included or excluded. Melia et al. 2010 argue that Vauban is stellplatzfrei, which is different from 'car-free' (which they say other sources frequently incorrectly claim): cars are allowed in all these streets, and even though parking on them is not allowed, this rule is sometimes violated and barely enforced.
- What doesn't help is the fact that the list has adopted a colouring scheme which seems to be WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. The legends of these colours aren't providing the reader with much clarity: [Dark green] Most or all of the area is essentially car-free and [Light green] Large area that is nearly car-free. Both phrases have so many caveats built into them that it just becomes vague rubbish. I read these phrases as two sides of the same coin, akin to saying "This glass is about half-empty" and "This glass is approximately half-full" when you're asked to point out all glasses that are empty; it's simply not a useful answer to the question you were asked and ignores the meaning of empty. These aren't helpful criteria, and I'm pretty sure none of the sources cited uses either of these "definitions" to categorise situations. Either more objective criteria or categories that are commonly used in literature will have to replace this self-invented stuff, or it just needs to go.
This list has lacked reliable sources (WP:RS) for most of its claims ever since its creation in 2004.
- Many of its claims are entirely WP:UNSOURCED.
- Many of the sources that are used are not RS.
  - Some of these have a very activist/ideological tone (WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NPOV). For example, 7 out of 36 references are carfree.fr, a website stating: CarFree France federates the entire fight against automotive oppression and offers many alternatives in terms of mobility and urban planning.
  - Many of these are travel guide-like sources, some of which also have an activist/ideological/emotional tone to it which is hardly compatible with NPOV. This is especially true for Reference 8, which is currently used 36 times to refer to Brouillard, Etienne (2014). Îles de rêve sans voiture, that is, "Dream Islands Without Car(s)". Page 3 has an emotional story about how cars create a constant pressure... from which it is difficult to escape. Fortunately, vast spaces separated from the rest of the world have been preserved. The "dream islands without cars" do not suffer from the automobile pressure, they place us in the heart of nature in a silence that has become rare, a silence necessary to reconnect to ourselves, our environment and to others.... (goes on for several sentences) It's fine for the author to think so, but that makes this a rather unscholarly source which is not well-suited for an encyclopaedia. Furthermore, when it says "without cars", that's not always true, as the author admits a few lines down: A rule which knows rare exceptions, derogations are sometimes accorded to a physician, to professionals or aged people. Elsewhere, lorries/trucks, ambulances or minibuses can be used for the community. This makes the author's claim that [proving] that a life without cars is possible every day, and accessible for all (which seems to be the book's goal) rather self-defeating.
What is even the point or purpose of this list? For example, what added value do the columns Area and Approximate population have? Does it matter? Why are we even talking about this issue in terms of territory and residents?
- Residents in the area are obviously not the only ones using the public space in question to move around, so why is this relevant to mention? And population is of course a very dynamic statistic, and one which would need to be regularly updated if it were important.
- And except for the islands, the areas of a city centre, city district, town, municipality that have been designated or could be identified as "car-free" are subject to change, because streets or squares can always be added or removed. This, too, would have to be regularly updated if a city council decided to add a street to the car-free zone. Moreover, how do you even calculate the 'area'? As the square metres of roads/streets/squares etc. where cars are banned? Or does it include all buildings and structures within a given area where cars are banned? In the case of islands, I suppose it includes all dry land between the waters; e.g. Feøy is given a "car-free area" of "1.3 km2". Fun fact: that is the entire island. Not just the streets/roads/squares, but apparently also areas where sheep farming is taking place. Why should that even count? Would we count sheep farming areas on the mainland as "car-free places" (I highly doubt it)? And again, why is this relevant to mention?

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the impression I'm getting here is that these columns have been added with the idea in mind that car-free places should expand to include ever more areas and populations, and that the end-goal of car-free places is to encompass the entire planet. These figures thus give an indication of "progress made" by people who have this end-goal. I don't think Wikipedia is the place for that (WP:ADVOCACY), nor is that necessarily the goal of pedestrianisation / car-free zoning. In urban planning, it's just a context-dependent solution to a specific problem or set of problems in a specific area, whereby the ultimate goal is not the elimination of car use around the world at all, but that safety, mobility (esp. traffic flow), livability, productivity/wealth etc. in specific areas is improved. Very often, that doesn't mean banning cars entirely, but just redirecting them (usually with ring roads) around urban centres where they don't need to be and cause needless problems. In short, if this list does have an encyclopaedic purpose, it can't be this one. These two columns should be removed at the very least.

So in summary, I think this list is an almost hopeless case. Without a clear scope, definition, reliable sources to enable verification, or appropriate encyclopaedic purpose, this list not only seems to violate the policies and guidelines I mentioned above, but also WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The German and French versions also underline this. Its German equivalent, which was based on a translation of the English original, has been moved to the draft space because it "requires a reworking": de:Portal:Transport und Verkehr/Entwürfe/Gebiete ohne Kraftfahrzeugverkehr. The French equivalent has a far more limited scope ("islands"), but apart from "place" faces the same problems with definitions, scope, sourcing and unclear relevance of area and population. I see little chance for salvaging it; if it is even possible to establish a proper scope and definition, restarting from scratch seems far preferable to trying to fix so much barely usable material. I see much more value in expanding Wikipedia's coverage of these concepts with examples and case studies in articles such as pedestrian zone and carfree city (which might be better renamed "carfree development"?). That's much better than this ill-conceived attempt to create an exhaustive list of all examples around the world, when we can't even agree on what we're talking about, and whether case X qualifies for inclusion on the list. I'm not a fan of cars either, but we can't have this POV-like overview that is apparently aimed at documenting milestones in the fight against automotive oppression. That's WP:NOT Wikipedia's job. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I don't think all hope is lost with this article (just yet). Granted, there is always room for improvement, as noted in the nom. However, if a more precise inclusion criteria can be defined, the article's content may be refined to stay within the new criteria's scope. It will take time and effort, but so too will starting from scratch. Call me an optimist, but I still see the merits of trying to improve it as supposed to an outright deletion. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to that possibility, but wouldn't you agree that pedestrian / car-free zones are always context-dependent, and it would still be very difficult to avoid generalisations, OR and SYNTH (I could add WP:LISTCRIT here)? The literature I've read so far (admittedly not a lot yet) acknowledges the many semantic problems of calling certain spaces "car-free" that aren't actually entirely "car-free" (Melia et al. 2010). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I've added the Template:Dynamic list to it, because it is evident that the inclusion criteria are unclear. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I share some of the concerns, I think this article has the potential to be informative and well-defined. As for the specific points: Venice (the main archipelago, excluding Lido) is entirely car-free with the exception of a very small parking lot accessible through a bridge. This place is not really part of the city proper since nobody lives there as far as I know. Cars are not used to travel around the city, but just to reach its borders. So Venice is a perfect example of a car-free city (and probably the largest example by far, with tens of thousand of permanent residents and even more tourists). I don't think any serious source would dispute this, and I don't see an issue with the image description. On the other hand, I think we need to exclude city centers in general, since I agree that in this case it's generally not clear where to put the border of the car-free area and the rest of the city. I also agree that the different color backgrounds need to go. I propose to leave only the clear examples of car-free places that are well-defined and are completely car-free within these well-defined borders. Obvious examples are all the islands with no cars, but I think that Morocco's medinas may also be other examples of well-defined and completely car-free areas. --Ita140188 (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ita140188: thanks for your input. If you could help with making this list well-defined, that would be appreciated. Could you help explain what you mean by the "city of Venice"?
1. The Metropolitan City of Venice (2,467 km²)? If you're excluding Lido, I presume you do not mean this.
2. The it:Municipalità di Venezia-Murano-Burano (Venezia (historic city)–Murano–Burano; 211,38 km²)? I would take this to mean the "main archipelago", but it includes islands such as Sant'Erasmo, which is not car-free.
3. "Venice" ("5.17 km²") according to the list? I have no idea what this figure is based on. Perhaps it is the "central group" of islands within the Venetian Lagoon? That still includes Sant'Erasmo, which is not car-free.
4. Just the six sestieri of the historic centre of Venice (646.8 ha)? If you mean just the six sestieri, I think we would have to disqualify the majority of the area of the Santa Croce (Venice) sestiere, including Tronchetto (or "Isola Nuova", which is indeed uninhabited), Santa Chiara (not sure if this is the official name of the island; based on some satellite images, there do appear to be several residental buildings where people live next to the police station at the Ponte della Libertà), and the island of the Piazzale Roma (not sure what the island's name is, but it is clearly inhabited and full of cars), because they are all accessible by cars and buses.
Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The area cited of 5.17 km2 (equivalent to 517 ha) is likely just the car-free area of the historical city center (excluding the parking), the part which most people refer to when they talk about Venice. The municipality (comune) of Venice is much larger and includes other localities such as Mestre on the mainland (not car-free). The Metropolitan city of Venice is a completely different thing and is equivalent to the old province of Venice, which includes many other cities and towns and is just an Italian administrative subdivision. Ita140188 (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the clarification that 5.17 km2 is the equivalent of 517 ha; for some reason I didn't realise that in my mind (haha). Suddenly it makes sense. If we subtract 517 ha from 646.8 ha (the total area of the 6 sestieri), we get 75.8 ha, which is the majority of the area of Santa Croce (88.57 ha minus the car-free area of Santa Croce (apparently 12.77 ha) equals 75.8 ha, which is apparently the combined surface area of Tronchetto, Santa Chiara and the Piazzale Roma island?). Not sure how this was calculated exactly, but it seems like we've got a match. Now I understand. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Transportation. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the nominator raises important points and a good argument but I don't think the article is beyond repair. I think some pruning and better sourcing is required going forward and I support removal of the area and population columns as these are hard to maintain and the purpose is questionable as the nominator says. Garuda3 (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How would you repair the definition and scope problem? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
defined as an extended area where car access is prohibited or very limited, as in the lead of the article, seems like a reasonable definition though this is why we still need the "notes" section for clarifications. Garuda3 (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, but what counts as very limited and what doesn't? For example, one place (an island) may only include emergency service vehicles. My native town only excludes personal cars in 4 streets/squares between 10 p.m. and 12 a.m., and calls that a "pedestrian zone". Vauban, Freiburg has a very loose understanding: car ownership is disincentivised but not banned, and parking in certain streets is not allowed (though often done, and rarely punished). Can we just lump all these very different situations together under the heading of very limited while avoiding WP:SYNTH? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Could someone please clarify the difference between a car-free zone and a Pedestrian zone? One one hand, comparing the introduction section suggests that suggests that pedestrian zones are in urban areas, but "car-free zone" also includes wilderness areas, islands, etc. But then the fact that car-free zone redirects to Pedestrian Zone seems to contradict this.
Separately, when looking through a few of the sources, I wasn't seeing much in-depth coverage of "car-free zone" as an overall concept. Could someone please identify which sources support that WP:NLIST is met? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, I also wondered about it in my nomination. So far, the only functional difference I see is that, if we take these terms very strictly, 'car-free zone' seems to imply cycling is permitted (because you're taking cars out, so pedestrians and cyclists stay in), while 'pedestrian zone' seems to imply cycling is not permitted (because you're taking everything except pedestrians out, so that includes cyclists). The problem is that, in practice, cycling is often (partially) allowed even in so-called 'pedestrian' zones, e.g. as I found in Pedestrian zone#Netherlands in certain areas of Rotterdam. Similarly, I can imagine so-called 'car-free zones' which are de facto also 'bike-free'. This question, too, underlines just how quickly we can descend into incorrect/misleading generalisations when theory and practice do not coincide. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. This sure is a complex topic... I am beginning to appreciate why the AFD nomination statement was so long! For example, the links provided by ResonantDistortion below are mostly articles about car-free cities, so if we follow the sources, then a rename to List of car-free cities seems appropriate. But then this comes back to the relationship between "car-free city", "car-free area" and "pedestrian zone", which currently seems as clear as mud. Hopefully some sources with definitions can be unearthed to help get to the bottom of this. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I have not made this nomination lightly. So far, I find "pedestrian zone" to be the most useful term, because it is often legally defined and enforced in local ordinances of a city or town, including a list of streets/squares, and sometimes exceptions (e.g. bikes, emergency vehicles etc.). On the other hand, a "car-free city" seems like a holy grail that lots of people (especially in the car-free movement) are searching for, but never seem to be quite able to find, only approximations with caveats here and there concerning a designated set of streets and squares in a city's centre (which, in practice, are often called "pedestrian zones", or stellplatzfrei, or "limited-access zones", rather than "car-free"). As Ita140188 argued above, city centre is not the same as city, but which areas should be designated "city" is often open to question and confusion. Alternately, we could go for the frwiki solution and limit ourselves to (the entire surface area of) islands to avoid those semantic problems, but that would still remain a dubious categorisation for all sorts of reasons I have pointed out (sheep farming areas and such). Lumping this all together under the vague heading of "places" seems obvious WP:SYNTH to me. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That the article itself has issues (as per the nom) may be obvious but is not relevant to AfD: WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. To meet WP:NLIST the concept of listing the items in a group must be substantiated by secondary sources (whether referenced or not). As a quick first review - there are articles out there which either list or compare: list of 14 car free cites, car free zones in London to be 'one of the largest', list of 7 car free cities, Several examples of car free areas given in article. ResonantDis_tortion 00:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOW WP:REALWORLD. This article has been misleading and misinforming people for 18 years out of Wikipedia's 21 years of existence. Nobody has bothered, or effectively attempted, to fix this article for 18 years, despite many calls for it, and several failed attempts at starting a discussion on the talk page. I, too, was actually trying to fix it before I found a boatload more reasons to get rid of it than to try and salvage it anymore. That's how I arrived at this AfD. If someone does know of a way to fix it, let them please say so explicitly, not just suggest that some day in perhaps yet another 18 years a purpose for this list might be found by some guy somewhere someday maybe. I think our readers are entitled to more quality than us keeping rubbish with very low potential lying around live in our mainspace for almost two decades. (We could follow the example of German Wikipedia and draftify it if anyone wants to have it).

Secondly, the fact that the term "car-free" is used in many secondary sources doesn't mean it is a coherent concept, let alone that there is consensus about what it means, if it differs from "pedestrian zone" or not, and whether it can/should be applied to "city", "place", "island", "zone", "area" etc. As I have attempted to demonstrate in my nomination, the sources used are not compatible, but widely contradictory on what we're really talking about. Pretending they're all saying the same thing violates WP:SYNTH.

Thirdly, it looks like some of the sources you mention here are not RS. Wired is, but that article about "Car-Free Cities" has its own problems, such as never really defining the term. The only precise term mentioned is something else: “low-traffic neighborhoods”—or LTNs. Every time "car-free (city)" is mentioned in this article (Oslo, London, Hamburg, Copenhagen, Ljubljana, Helsinki, and Barcelona), it's never about an entire city, and usually not a complete ban on cars in even selected parts of the city. Similarly, the Intelligent Transport source points out that "car-free" can also mean Some streets will be converted to walking and cycling only, with others restricted to all traffic apart from buses, as part of the Mayor’s latest bold Streetspace measures. Access for emergency services and disabled people will be maintained, but deliveries on some streets may need to be made outside of congestion charging hours. Unless I don't understand the words "car" or "-free", I think this shows that a great deal of liberty is taken with this concept to include situations in which lots of cars or other motor vehicles are still pretty much allowed to drive in a certain street as long as they are of a certain type, have a certain purpose, or are there at a certain time. That's a whole lot of exceptions on the claim of being "car-free".

The fact that some websites on the Internet of varying quality have arbitrary lists lumping together a bunch of so-called "car-free cities" that turn out not to be quite-so-really-actually-completely-entirely-totally-car-"free" doesn't mean Wikipedia also needs to have one. We do have our standards. If we keep such poorly defined, arbitrarily put together, badly sourced lists around, I'm afraid we're setting a very bad example of what is acceptable as encyclopaedic. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personall I wouldn't count buses or emergancy services as cars. I also think maintaining limited access for disabled people can still fit within the broader definition of "car free" Garuda3 (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That seems plausible, but we would need reliable sources to support such a "broader definition of "car free"". We can't just make it up as we go along. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question As nom I'm glad everyone acknowledges various issues I have pointed out with this list, but in turn, I also acknowledge that so far everyone thinks these are fixable in some way. Perhaps WP:SPLITTING is a good alternative? Most of my objections seem to ultimately stem from the fact that too many different things are lumped together under the headings of "car-free" and "places" in ways that are inappropriate and in violation of various policies and guidelines, so unweaving them might just be the solution. I was thinking about the following:

List of populated car-free islands as the English equivalent to fr:Liste d'îles sans voiture. Each entry must have a reliable source stating that said populated island is de jure car-free by deliberate choice/design/political decision, so we won't go around listing all islands that are de facto car-free because nobody lives there in the first place, or it's just one guy and his kayak or something living there. There is no need to list the area or population; that can all be checked in the main article of the island in question.
List of pedestrian zones (currently a redirect to List of car-free places). This must be strictly based on a local law/ordinance (by the city council/govt/mayor etc.) de jure designating a certain area of a city as a "pedestrian zone" or equivalent (pedestrian precincts, pedestrian malls, pedestrianised area etc.), not just "car-free zone" or "auto-free zone" (which we agree are usually poorly defined concepts, and it seems to me that they are rarely defined as such in law; it's mostly what you see news media articles talking about). There seems to be broad consensus that there can be some exceptions to this rule that pedestrian zones are only for the use of pedestrians, such as cycling (very often allowed, but not always), emergency services or transport for disabled people (frequently cited), but not personal/private cars/vans, delivery vehicles, trucks/lorries and the like. These exceptions should be stated in the Notes section of each entry. When relevant, this could include an indication of how much (area) of the given city has been pedestrianised to avoid the impression that the entire city is "car-free" (see the Venice example above, where area size turned out to be useful for understanding what we're talking about). Cases of de facto pedestrian zones will not count, because then we get into the grey area of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH arbitrary generalisations. Verified and RS-cited examples of pedestrian zones can be moved from the current List of car-free places, articles such as Pedestrian zone#Examples, Pedestrian zone#By region and country, Carfree city#Examples, Pedestrian village.
Ban on on-street parking. I think this should be a separate standalone article on this concept, because now it is subsumed in other articles about other things. It's really a separate phenomenon. Just because you can't park your car in some streets doesn't mean the entire city is suddenly "car-free", that is such an unwarranted stretch (as Melia et al. 2010 said about Vauban, Freiburg). I don't think it makes much sense to start an entire list of places where on-street parking is banned, though mentioning a few examples is certainly quite helpful. But the theoretical concept really deserves its own page.
something like limited-access zone / low-traffic neighbourhood (LTN): I'm not sure what material remains once we have split off these three lists/articles, but I would suspect that these kinds of zones are what were are left with: urban areas which are not islands, nor pedestrian zones, nor no-parking areas, where cars are allowed but only within well-defined legal limits. Again, cases of de facto sort-of-car-free-zones-but-not-really will not count, because then we get into the grey area of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH arbitrary generalisations. Verified and RS-cited examples of these zones can be moved from current articles and lists such as those mentioned above.

Would this be a viable alternative to keeping the current list (full of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH arbitrary generalisations)? I'd love to hear your perspectives. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2022 (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.