Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/79th Street (Manhattan)

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. John254 14:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

79th Street (Manhattan)[edit]

These streets in Manhattan are fairly generic and do not have any inherent notability. As an alternative, these could be merged to a range of streets or just two-way streets. -- bmitchelf•T•F 01:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Keep. nom has not provided specific reason to delete, and mentions merging but has not taken any steps toward doing so. You said it Dad (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My reason for nomination is that they have no notability, as the articles are just filled with famous people who live there, intersections, and famous places, which are covered in their own articles. Even more streets than these should be deleted, in my opinion, but I did not want to take the time at first only to see it wasted. -- bmitchelf•T•F 02:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are major streets in Manhattan, with articles supported by reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep concur with above. JJL (talk) 01:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and nominate any though to really have a problem, though I think all or almost all could be supported without much difficulty. Streets are notable for what is located there--what else could they be notable for, except the details of their construction & zoning--which could in fact be fully documented for any NYC street. the inclusion of Central Park South on the list of streets called "fairly generic" shows the problem with the nomination! DGG (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've come here from the 116th Street article. Notability has been has been established there. Will assume the other streets have interesting histories as well. Louis Waweru Talk 02:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nominating so many articles at once just isn't going to fly... but some of these streets don't look very notable. What's next, an article on a zip code because there's something notable in it? The principle of "notability is not inherited" would seem to rule out an article on a street just because something notable is located on it. --Rividian (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, streets are being added after votes have been cast, which confuses the issue. JJL (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not a machine. I added them as quickly as I could. -- bmitchelf•T•F 02:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Adding articles for deletion as fast as you can is a big part of the problem. Wikipedia:Deletion policy requires nominators to review articles and to consider options for improving or merging articles before a mad rush to deletion, a step that does not appear to have been taken for any of the articles list here. Alansohn (talk) 03:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List separately Some of the article does assert notability and based on what I read, like 116th street, are indeed notable. SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Streets are notable in cities not only for what's located on them, but as boundaries of neighborhoods and business backbones as well. Street's like 110th and 116th have songs and books written about them! Keep the stub articles, they are harmless. As far as the longer articles, I can't believe they are even nominated. Having disparate articles linked through street articles is one of the great strengths of WP. --Knulclunk (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think some obvious merges Central Park North + 110th, Central Park South + 59th would not be out of line though.--Knulclunk (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Manhattan is one of the most notable urban areas on the planet. These articles describe significant streets and are part of a larger effort to organize Wikipedia's coverage of Manhattan. --agr (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, how do you come up with this crap? I think 78th Street is important since I live there, but not that it should have a Wikipedia article. You can't tell me that 112th Street deserves an encyclopedia article when all it does is describe its location, which I can find on a map. Obviously, these places are more important than I knew for some reason. -- bmitchelf•T•F 02:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The current state of a Wikipedia article doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the subject deserves to have one. Bad articles can be improved. I'm sure more can be said about these streets than just the geographical location info that's there now. Reyk _YO! 03:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This bundling is overly broad. If you want to nominate streets do them individually. There are indeed some stubs and crappy articles. But I really get the impression that the nominator didn't even bother to read some of the articles. The notability of a lot of these streets is established more than a lot of the state highway articles out there. It's hard to believe the nominator would go after any of the midtown streets which is the capital corporate America. Americasroof (talk) 03:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete every last one of them These streets are not notable. They are just streets; most of them are not even "major" streets in Manhattan, and even if they are, so what? Whether they are in the center of commerce or have songs written about them is beside the point. Will Wikipedia become a repository of every song ever written next? (That's a Robert Klein comedy routine, by the way.) Someone mentioned that just because there is something notable on them does not warrant their inclusion. Well, they got that right. (Sure, got that right.) --Jgroub (talk) 03:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for now. I'm not sold on the justification for many other keep votes here, they seem to argue that these streets are notable simply because they exist or have inherited notability from the landmarks located on them. However I think the bundling here is over-broad as it includes a great many articles of various lengths, importance and notability. Some look crufty and the sort of article I'd vote delete on, but others are clearly worthy and so I can't justify voting delete. If you want to renominate a single article that you think is fairly typical of the bottom end of these street articles, I wouldn't object. If you got a consensus for delete on that discussion, then you could mass nominate more of the dodgy ones. Reyk _YO! 03:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major streets in one of the world's major cities should not be included in such a group nomination. The nomination is overly broad. Some of these streets are known for the United Nations, as venues for modern jazz, or as the home of Columbia University. A quick Google News search shows dozens of possible sources for many of them., such as this one for 27th Street [1] in which the New York Times says it holds "a smorgasbord of architectural diversity." Many of these streets are the locations of nationally or internationally known institutions, entertainment districts, or commercial districts. Edison (talk) 04:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Each article has substantiated notability. While individual streets in any particular place seem unlikely to warrant their own articles, New York City is one of the few if not only places where so many parts of it are notable. You said it Dad (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most. Many should be merged into appropriate range articles such as Manhattan streets, 1-14, or a group of two or three that are contigous and were at one time renamed, should be merge, but most are notable enough to survive. Incidentally I live on one of the more dubious streets. For that matter, several Outer Boro streets are main arteries {I spent part of today dodging cars on Hylan Boulevard (Staten Island) and deserve articles. Jim.henderson (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close Overbroad nomination that has had deletion candidates added to the bundle since original posting. Methinks it not a good idea to create an AfD history on all these articles by allowing this to run its course. Townlake (talk) 04:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All or procedural close as above. Merging some might be appropriate, but Manhattan has got to be the most densely notable geographical location in the USA. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Or, dear God, somebody will post an article for every street of Beijing. And every street in old Rome. And Alexandria. And Athens. And Tyre, and Nineveh, and Ctesiphon, and Instanbul. In every historical era. Wikipedia is not a street directory. The "notable facts" for this street don't even rise to the level of laughing. I don't know about all the other streets, but ... RayAYang (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I don't think this should be a mass deletion... I would consider them individually. gren グレン 05:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly, there is not a consensus that streets are inheretly non-notable. These would really have to be considered individually. Maxa megalon 2000 05:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These gigantic batch AfDs are always a waste of everyone's time as there are always variations in the specific articles as to their notabilities. Just about every street in Manhattan has historical, social and economic significance, not only to NY, but to the world. I just clicked one of these at random (66th Street (Manhattan)) and found it's the location of Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts and the headquarters for ABC News (that stretch of the street is co-named Peter Jennings Way). No good nor supported reason was given to delete by the nom and their alternative ("a range of streets or just two-way streets"?) is non-sensical. --Oakshade (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, all of these streets appear to have some degree of notability. Everyking (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. I object to a mass AFD as these likely have different characteristics, i.e. some may be notable some may be not. Please address specific issues individually. Nominator should also try working with relevant WikiProjects (e.g. WP:NYC) to address criteria for what streets should get an article rather than a mass deletion nomination. --Polaron | Talk 15:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although generically named, every single one of these is a major urban street two miles or more in length in one of the world largest, most famous and most heavily populated cities. Many of them - such as 110th Street - have strong cultural notability. Many of them also has historical relevance as boundaries of Dutch-era settlements, courses of elevated railroad tracks, sites of famous crimes, and the like. Even that fact that many of them feature the street addressses of nationally or internationally notable buildings contributes to the argument for their retention. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is snowing... --Explodicle (T/C) 16:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - if you allow this, then you have to allow every third street of Delhi and Bombay et al. And I'm prepared to write those articles... ChiragPatnaik (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I guess a mass purge will never past muster... ChiragPatnaik (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no inherent problem in that as long as there is sufficient information that can be used to write a substantial article. Being a major city, I don't doubt that lots of interesting stuff can be said about the major streets of Delhi. --Polaron | Talk 16:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it! Wikipedia will be better off with comparable articles from other major metropolises. Alansohn (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my first proposed contribution User:ChiragPatnaik/Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg. Do comment ChiragPatnaik (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Put it in article space and add it to the other roads in Category:Streets in Delhi--agr (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi Roads is a more interesting category... ChiragPatnaik (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the article is now up. I found it interesting and well sourced. Streets are a useful way of organizing information about cities. I think there are more important issues for people to spend time on than nit picking which streets should have articles.--agr (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—A significant number of these articles look astonishingly unimportant; comparable to a common store article in value. But there are a handful that are properly cited and contain interesting details. Hence I can't support a mass purge.—RJH (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. Although this is clearly a WP:SNOW situation for keeping, my preference would be to close as an overbroad nomination. New York City is one of those locations where individual streets most definitely can be individually notable but whether each of of those nominated here is notable, I couldn't say. But a blanket nom of this nature is impossible to resolve. This is just my 2 cents from a procedural perspective; I've no issue against the snowballing keep decision. 23skidoo (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I recall correctly, some New York streets have been deleted as non-notable in previous AFDs, but they tended to be 2 block long residential streets. Any of these could be individually considered and might or might not survive AFD. Edison (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep stubby as most of the articles may be, most if not all of them establish some notability. Maybe, if they were all nominated individually, I would reconsider, but they cannot be mass deleted on the basis of a one sentence nomination. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist separately. Some of these streets seem to be clearly WP:50k notable - others may not be. This is in danger of becoming a trainwreck nom. Grutness...wha? 01:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Most should go, just being a street in NYC is not inherently notable, "notability is not inherited" I think applies here, but being NYC some of these streets probably are notable. Just a note as well that the creation of these articles continues even now so a re-list and a re-opening of this debate is likely anyway. Strongly suggest the nom withdraw and re-assess on an individual basis. (Did anyone actually read every single one of these articles and check all the sources because I know I sure didn't) Beeblbrox (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trainwreck - these needed to be reviewed and the relisted separetely to be judged on their own merit. -- Whpq (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - these are notable and contain enough content to be their own pages CoolGuy (talk) 05:16, 26 July 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.