Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parliament Street (Toronto)
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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Parliament Street (Toronto) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Redirect to List of roads in Toronto#Parliament Street. Current article contains nothing more than a more brief history than the target, and a description of a bus route. One of over 100 "major roads" in Toronto that supposedly deserve their own standalone article. Target contains a sourced history of the name and can easily accomodate a summarized route description. No need for this brochure. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Important Note - Less than a week ago, List of roads in Toronto was a simple list with multiple wikilinks to articles of streets included in the list. It was only less than 7 KB long.
Here is what it looked like on February 3, 2011.
On February 3, the nom then took various contents from all of those articles and placed them in this list article and removed most of the wikilinks, including to Parliament Street (Toronto).[1] That article is now over 109 kb, way too long per WP:SIZERULE. I suppose this was all part of an effort to delete most Toronto street articles and just have summaries in this new parent one and add content from his own userspace for streets that had no articles and this AfD is an extension of that effort. --Oakshade (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mostly. Most of the content at List of roads in Toronto is new and written by me. Only a handful of info is copied from the old articles. The purpose, however, was indeed to get rid of this convoluted mess of crappy articles and make one or two good articles (and yes, we can always split it in half. Until recently it wasn't 109kB). I'm not hiding this fact, this is an attempt to compress disjointed information into less space, without compromising the content of the articles. No important content is being lost, its just being moved to a central article (or two). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Floydian, I'm sure your intentions were good, but that is a list article. Per WP:LIST, list articles are supposed to be just that, lists which might include wikilinks to articles of some topics on the list, not full encyclopedic content about each topic listed. That's what non-list articles are for. --Oakshade (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But it is a list. There is absolutely no guideline which even hints at that list having to be a simple list of items, with no details on those items. In addition, numerous featured lists prove otherwise. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument that this info can not be merged to the list due to WP:SIZERULE is flawed. The obvious solution to sizerule problems is to divide the list by category (something easy to do when it can be split by geography), not give individual elements their own article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yaksar, this wasn't an "argument" one way or the other but a description of events that have transpired. --Oakshade (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Floydian, I'm sure your intentions were good, but that is a list article. Per WP:LIST, list articles are supposed to be just that, lists which might include wikilinks to articles of some topics on the list, not full encyclopedic content about each topic listed. That's what non-list articles are for. --Oakshade (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mostly. Most of the content at List of roads in Toronto is new and written by me. Only a handful of info is copied from the old articles. The purpose, however, was indeed to get rid of this convoluted mess of crappy articles and make one or two good articles (and yes, we can always split it in half. Until recently it wasn't 109kB). I'm not hiding this fact, this is an attempt to compress disjointed information into less space, without compromising the content of the articles. No important content is being lost, its just being moved to a central article (or two). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Historic street, not only for Toronto, but all of Canada. Site of the first parliament buildings. Very in-depth coverage from secondary sources were easily found. [2][3][4] --Oakshade (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Additional Comment - List of roads in Toronto#Parliament Street is already above 100kb. Per WP:SIZERULE, that is way too big and should be divided. Merging the topic-specific content of this article into that one makes it even larger and complete opposite of Wikipedia rules. --Oakshade (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A street named after the first parliament buildings (which, I should mention, have their own article and are mentioned in several) is going to have trivial mention in plenty of sources. It doesn't necessitate a stand alone article to state that lone claim to notability. The target can contain all of that information, and when a non-stub article on Parliament Street is made, it can be split out into its own article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Oakshade. - SimonP (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per nom. While there are notable things on the road, the pavement that forms Parliment Street is not notable. AdmrBoltz 04:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a nice personal opinion, but in-depth coverage of this topic disagrees. Admrboltz, you're not stalking me, are you? --Oakshade (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not. I happen to be a member of both WP:CRWP and WP:USRD, which both of our recent conversations have been related to. I also follow the CAT:AFD/P category, which both of these articles have been listed in. --AdmrBoltz 04:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which doesn't seem to have anything to do with Dan Charnas, an article I just created and you just (temporarily) placed a prod on. [5] You motivation in this and another afd is suspicious. Please stop following me around. --Oakshade (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your "in-depth coverage" is a trivial mention and two books that are written as walking tours of the entire downtown area. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Trivial" is defined by WP:GNG as a "one sentence mention" in a work about another topic. The coverage is way beyond the scope of a "one sentence mention" and is in fact multiple paragraphs, both about its history and, as you just admitted, it being a tourist attraction. --Oakshade (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll notice the first book (which I have a hard copy of in my hands), several pages down (pg 19), has a long section on Small Street. The third is Henry Scadding's 1873 book that describes most of old Toronto to absolutely amazing detail. The second book is a tourist guide of Toronto... exactly WP:what Wikipedia is not. All three of these are mentioning as much about the street itself as I have at List of roads in Toronto#Parliament Street. Everything else is describing places of interest along Parliament Street. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All confirmation the coverage is way beyond "trivial." Glad some editors are actually reading real books. --Oakshade (talk) 05:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No! That's exactly the point I'm making. These books describe shopping and attractions, but are organized in a walking tour fashion, street by street. They don't describe the street itself, they describe places you can visit which are on that street. Toronto Street Names describes streets and their origin and history; Mike Filey describes streets and their origin and history; Henry Scadding wrote a description of every block of Toronto as it was in 1873. Can you not see the difference in the strength of these sources? Further, can you not see that the information is better contained alongside the history and origin of other Toronto streets, and not as a short two paragraph stub all by itself? One comprehensive article on the streets of Toronto is better than 50 disjointed stubs. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 06:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Exclamation points aren't going to help your case. There's far too much topic-specific content to be merged in the already too long List of roads in Toronto#Parliament Street which is currently over 100k. Per WP:SIZERULE, we actually need to split that article up. And if you don't like the sources that give significant coverage to this street because the describe " description of every block of Toronto as it was in 1873", that has nothing to do with our notability guidelines. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. If thousands of streets have detailed in-depth coverage, than we can have thousands of street articles. As as far as a travel guide [6] , it goes into detail what's on this street which you keep admitting. Coverage about what's on this street is in fact coverage of this street. That you want it to talk about the pavement or something is just silly.--Oakshade (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed on that point. I made List of roads in Toronto in my sandbox. Now that it has grown, it may be appropriate to spit it in half by north-south and east-west roads. You're so very wrong in assuming thousands of minor streets deserve articles on wikipedia. They belong in a list that documents the etimology of street names in that location. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Exclamation points aren't going to help your case. There's far too much topic-specific content to be merged in the already too long List of roads in Toronto#Parliament Street which is currently over 100k. Per WP:SIZERULE, we actually need to split that article up. And if you don't like the sources that give significant coverage to this street because the describe " description of every block of Toronto as it was in 1873", that has nothing to do with our notability guidelines. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. If thousands of streets have detailed in-depth coverage, than we can have thousands of street articles. As as far as a travel guide [6] , it goes into detail what's on this street which you keep admitting. Coverage about what's on this street is in fact coverage of this street. That you want it to talk about the pavement or something is just silly.--Oakshade (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No! That's exactly the point I'm making. These books describe shopping and attractions, but are organized in a walking tour fashion, street by street. They don't describe the street itself, they describe places you can visit which are on that street. Toronto Street Names describes streets and their origin and history; Mike Filey describes streets and their origin and history; Henry Scadding wrote a description of every block of Toronto as it was in 1873. Can you not see the difference in the strength of these sources? Further, can you not see that the information is better contained alongside the history and origin of other Toronto streets, and not as a short two paragraph stub all by itself? One comprehensive article on the streets of Toronto is better than 50 disjointed stubs. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 06:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All confirmation the coverage is way beyond "trivial." Glad some editors are actually reading real books. --Oakshade (talk) 05:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll notice the first book (which I have a hard copy of in my hands), several pages down (pg 19), has a long section on Small Street. The third is Henry Scadding's 1873 book that describes most of old Toronto to absolutely amazing detail. The second book is a tourist guide of Toronto... exactly WP:what Wikipedia is not. All three of these are mentioning as much about the street itself as I have at List of roads in Toronto#Parliament Street. Everything else is describing places of interest along Parliament Street. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Trivial" is defined by WP:GNG as a "one sentence mention" in a work about another topic. The coverage is way beyond the scope of a "one sentence mention" and is in fact multiple paragraphs, both about its history and, as you just admitted, it being a tourist attraction. --Oakshade (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your "in-depth coverage" is a trivial mention and two books that are written as walking tours of the entire downtown area. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which doesn't seem to have anything to do with Dan Charnas, an article I just created and you just (temporarily) placed a prod on. [5] You motivation in this and another afd is suspicious. Please stop following me around. --Oakshade (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not. I happen to be a member of both WP:CRWP and WP:USRD, which both of our recent conversations have been related to. I also follow the CAT:AFD/P category, which both of these articles have been listed in. --AdmrBoltz 04:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a nice personal opinion, but in-depth coverage of this topic disagrees. Admrboltz, you're not stalking me, are you? --Oakshade (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect/Merge per nom. Imzadi 1979 → 04:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - Per nom. Dough4872 05:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep per WP:SK — the nomination fails to advance an argument for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- redirect per nom. All information easily could and should fit in the list mentioned.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've done a bit of book cite digging and created a short history section. In addition to its historic role as the thoroughfare leading up to Parliament, it apparently was cut under the orders of Lord Simcoe to link with Castle Frank on the Don. There's more work to be done but I'm satisfied that the street played a notable historic role in the evolution of what is now modern day Toronto. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Shawn in Montreal. Amazing how a little work can improve an article. freshacconci talktalk 04:09, 8 February 2011 (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.