Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armdale Rotary

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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 11:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Armdale Rotary[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)

Article about a pretty run of the mill piece of road infrastructure, not reliably sourced as clearing WP:ROADOUTCOMES. The sole footnote being cited here is a press release from the city government, which is not a notability-conferring source -- and the external links aren't evidence of notability either, comprising merely its location on Google Maps and a non-notable Movable Type blogger's page of rotary-(un)inspired haiku. As always, the notability bar for a road is not merely the ability to demonstrate that it exists -- it requires reliably sourced political, social or historical context for what might make the road important, but the only content here that even starts to tip in that direction is a completely unsourced anecdotal claim that driving on it used to piss some people off (which is hardly an "inherently" notable characteristic of a road in and of itself, as anybody who's ever driven on practically any arterial road in any big city can tell you.) Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. I myself looked for sources and did not find any. That is why I did a failed prod on this. Most of the article is thus unverifiable anyway. If being poorly designed and infamous to locals conferred notability, I could write several articles about intersections in my city. -Crossroads- (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I looked for sources and had no difficulty finding plenty of them. For example, see Rehabilitation of the Armdale Rotary. So this should be kept per policies including WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE, &c. Note also that WP:MILL is neither policy nor guideline, being just an opinionated essay. WP:MILL is also inapplicable is as this is a major junction with an exceptional history. Also note that WP:ROADOUTCOMES makes no reference to traffic circles and so is just a vague wave. Andrew D. (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An engineering report from a commercial engineering company is not notability-making sourcing. And traffic circles are roads, and thus are still covered by ROADOUTCOMES whether it specifically singles them out for specific mention or not. Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew Davidson. Bookscale (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unclear why Andrew thinks a routine traffic engineering case study makes this notable - surely not every concept presented on at a transportation conference automatically gets an article. This is neither a peer-reviewed article nor published in a journal so it is not a strong source for establishing notability. I do not see any sources that attest to this being anything other than one of the generic roundabouts and traffic circles in Canada. Simply absurd to claim that because we're not made of paper, anything and WP:EVERYTHING must be kept perpetually; just because we can evaluate alternatives to deletion does not mean everything is immune from deletion. Reywas92^Talk 22:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A routine case of local squabbling that got very little coverage outside of its local area. Sounder Bruce 00:55, 15 August 2019 (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.