Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint-Michel Boulevard (Montreal)

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 redirect to Saint-Michel, Montreal. Consensus is to not have a stand-alone page. However, since it is fine being mentioned in the neighbourhood article, there's nothing wrong with a redirect, which found support in this AfD. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saint-Michel Boulevard (Montreal)[edit]

[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)

Poorly referenced article about a city street, with no genuinely strong claim of notability. As always, every street (even fairly major arterial roads) is not automatically presumed notable just because it exists, or even just because it has a notable building on it — per WP:ROADOUTCOMES, the key to making a city street notable enough for an article is to show properly sourced historical, political or social context for what makes the road special. But the only sources being shown here are a map, a historical directory of street names published by the city itself, and a glancing namecheck of the street's existence in a single news article about a shooting that happened on it two months ago, which is not enough — and even the French article doesn't actually contain any more content or any more sourcing than this (its only "reference" besides the city directory is a clarifying note rather than a source citation.) Simply put, neither the substance nor the sourcing shown here are enough to make a road notable. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why recreate in a red link in {{Streets in Montreal}} Template:Streets in Montreal? This is a small part of the history of Montreal. Peter Horn User talk 01:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every street and building and park that exists at all can always claim to be a "small part" of the history of the place where it exists — but that's not a reason why every street or building or park that exists at all would automatically qualify for an encyclopedia article. And red links in templates or articles can easily be either unlinked or removed entirely, so "but deleting this would recreate a redlink" isn't a valid reason in and of itself to keep an article that hasn't established its topic's basic notability in the first place either. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The article is not much more than an WP:ITEXISTS exercise. Etymology of the name is trivial. The claim that this street is part of History of Montreal is not corroborated by that article, which only mentions the Saint-Michel neighbourhood in passing. — JFG ^talk 01:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ (comment) The same objection could be raised against all entries in Template:Streets in Montreal. But see les grandes rues de Montreal. Peter Horn User talk 02:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry had to strike-off your double keep. Matthew_hk t c 04:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and remove other red link in the template, unless notability was shown. Matthew_hk t c 04:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, see les grandes rues de Montreal. A good source for expanding this article and perhaps others. That said, why not get rid of the template altogether, because the same objection(s) could be reached against every street liated in the template. Peter Horn User talk 14:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A source published by the city itself is a primary source, not an independent one, so it does not constitute evidence in and of itself that a street passes our notability test for streets. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MTLskyline: This is nitpicking. By these criteria one could delete all streets from the the template. One solution would be to create two new aricles, one for north southe streets and another for east west streets, made sections on each. Peter Horn User talk 21:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a few thousand street in Hong Kong. I don't think creating a template to list all the street name, would had a logic to justify the creation of thousand of article for non-notable street. Some project out of wikipedia may useful to create an entry for each street, but not in an encyclopedia. Matthew_hk t c 05:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kellergraham: Look, Saint Michel Boulevard (Montreal) is not simply any street, but a Thoroughfare. As such it is not less notable than Papineau Avenue Park Avenue (Montreal) and Saint Hubert Street etc. Leave this alone as a Stub. You all take care of Hong Kong streets and Hong Kong Roads. Let Montreal Wikipedians take care on Montreal. Peter Horn User talk 14:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thoroughfares are not automatically more notable than "regular" streets are just because you use the word "thoroughfare" — no matter what kind of street it is, its notability still has to be demonstrated by historical, political or social context for what makes it special, not just by basic factoids and its physical description, and still has to be supported by reliable source content about it (which is not the same thing as "glancingly mentioning its name in coverage about something else") in sources independent of it (which is not the same thing as "the city government's own self-published website"). I live in Toronto, and lots of streets here which can also claim to be thoroughfares and not just side streets still don't have their own standalone articles either, because they're lacking the depth of context and sourcing needed to earn them. Same goes in New York City and Chicago and Los Angeles and London, too: there are many more city streets that don't have Wikipedia articles than there are city streets that do, and the distinction isn't "thoroughfares automatically get freebies while other streets don't" — it's "substantive context and solid sourcing for it". Even minor side streets can have articles if they can show context and sourcing for why they should have articles (frex, Degrassi Street in Toronto and Christopher Street in New York City are both minor streets with outsized notability claims), and major thoroughfares can fail to qualify for articles if they can't show context and sourcing for why they should have articles (frex, Wellesley Street in Toronto is a thoroughfare, but one whose basis for notability subsumes into a specific city neighbourhood it passes through, and therefore exists on Wikipedia only as a redirect to that neighbourhood rather than standing alone as an independent article topic in its own right.) Bearcat (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as soon as I have time, I shall make this a section of Saint-Michel, Montreal and cut/copy and paste all info into that new section of that existin article. The now existing article can the become a redirect. Peter Horn User talk 15:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Peter Horn User talk 16:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect looks like a reasonable outcome. I would support that instead of outright deletion. — JFG ^talk 21:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Bearcat. Not even useful as a redirect as it's unlikely anyone would type in the title and, according to the French naming conventions, the actual street name is reversed as Boulevard Saint-Michel. Ifnord (talk) 05:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Michel Boulevard did appeared in English language Canadian media for the road, it would be a reasonable redirect to an article title Boulevard Saint-Michel (Montreal) if the road pass GNG. However, it did not and seems only had routine coverage BTW. Matthew_hk t c 10:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Saint-Michel, Montreal as seems to have already been done. The road's origin and history as a pioneer road seems as though it would pass our notability standards on roads, but redirecting to the neighbourhood article with relevant content seems like a fine outcome too. The title is fine for a redirect: it's the road's proper English name, and disambiguation is required from the Saint Michel Boulevard in Paris. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 09:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Saint-Michel, Montreal. I suspect the street could be notable; it has a 200-year old history, but you'd probably need to look in offline French sources to establish that. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:18, 13 October 2018 (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.