Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old 16 Avenue

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. Shereth 16:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old 16 Avenue

Non-notable road. Epbr123 (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, same reasoning. Ironho lds 00:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "The street has 2 houses, a stop sign, a street sign saying "==OLD 16TH AVENUE== Historic Markham Village" and a NO EXIT sign." Which of those makes it notable? The fact that stop signs have an article on Wikipedia doesn't make every road with a stop sign notable. Otherwise, I'd need a Wikipedia article, because I have a gall bladder. Roads are only notable, in general, if they have some historical/political/geographical/commercial importance. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 01:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could be speedied--no assertion of notability (and no sources). JJL (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No redeeming qualities. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete because this road claims to have potential. And has references and external links. Whenaxis (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete because the road is real, go visit this: Old 16th Avenue Map. The page is complete. And anyway somebody put a "delete" sign when it had a "underconstruction" sign, and on the underconstruction sign it says do not intend to put a delete sign as this article is being revamped or being completed. 64.231.192.71 (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The IP address has only edited Old 16 Avenue and the AFD. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 22:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the problem isn't the amount of information in the page or the existence of the road, it's the fact that there is absolutely nothing significant whatsoever about it. The "references" are all either dead links, don't mention the road or freewebs. Read WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N to get an idea of what Wikipedia expects of an article subject. Hut 8.5

12:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete Notability is conspicuously lacking. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't deletebecause the road is part of the "Historic Markham Village" which has been around since the late 19th Century. The road has a that special sign "Historic Markham Village" underneath of the street name. 76.66.222.66 (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: IP only voted in this AfD and edited article in question. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 22:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't deletesame reason as above. Why would you want to delete an article about a road if the road is historic? Whenaxis (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The road is part of the Historic Markham Village, yes. But it isn't notable enough. From Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Geography:

City streets are contested, but minor streets are not generally acceptable. Most numbered roadways are acceptable, but should only be created if they can be described beyond the route itself. Major, unnumbered streets and roads beyond the level of a side street or neighborhood roadway may be created, but are not guaranteed to remain, as outcomes have varied. An article that explains the social, cultural, historical or political context of a road in depth is more likely to survive AFD than one which merely describes the road's physical characteristics.

The article on Old 16 Avenue doesn't describe the road beyond its route, and I don't see any chance of that being possible. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 16:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Minor streets are not generally acceptable". A couple of houses that - gasp! - get mail, three road signs and an occasional pile of snow. Minor. Not notable. --Ka renjc 19:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete because it has a special sign that's part of the street sign that has "HISTORIC MARKHAM VILLAGE". Instead of a regular green street sign it has a brown/white sign, with "Historic Markham Village...since 1896" in brown and "OLD 16 AVENUE" in white. Whenaxis (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The user has voted already. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 22:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC),[reply]
  - Addition: Whenaxis created the article. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 22:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Historic Markham Village provides some weight but not enough. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 22:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the road has two house, and a stop sign and was recently repaved. Mail is delivered, and emergency services may be contacted via 911... --T-rex 03:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Multimap doktorb _words^deeds 22:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines to ensure a WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR article DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there's something historic about Markham Village, then let's see an article about that topic. In fact, the other divisions of Markham have articles. As far as Old 16 Avenue goes, though, it's a non-notable component of this district. Delete. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A 0.05-km two-house residential cul-de-sac is not encyclopedia-worthy. Delete. Wikipedia is not a place where every road on earth deserves its own article. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 26 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.