Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birchmount Road (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 July 13. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. As pointed out, this road has no real notability over any other. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Birchmount Road[edit]
AfDs for this article:
- Birchmount Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete - I'll let others decide if they want to redirect it, but I want this salted so that Simon P doesn't "restore and cleanup" it again after several months. Non notable suburban road. Three of the sources are images from the Toronto archives and/or summaries of categorized subject matter (images of roads in the archives are categorized by the road's name, but this imparts zero notability upon the subject). One of the remaining sources is self-published, while the lone straggler is a reliable newspaper article discussing the decline of a neighbourhood which Birchmount serves as the eastern edge to, making passing mention of the subject. Delete, as it does not meet WP:GNG ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've added some stuff on the recent bike lane controversy, which includes several more good refs. The article could still use some improvements, but most of the content is good. Also, I'm not sure how Transit Toronto is a self-published site. It's a volunteer effort, but well respected. And it certainly involves more than one person. - SimonP (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The bike lane controversy is not regarding Birchmount, but the bike lane network and the removal of any lane from anywhere in the city. The current wording is already the maximum extent of what could be said on that subject: They were installed by councillor A, councillor B was elected at next election and removed them, as was the wish of her constituents. Every road with a bike lane has controversy surrounding the bike lane, but that doesn't make every insignificant road through suburban Toronto with a bike lane notable (Brimorton, anyone?). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, as an admin you should certainly know that a self-published source doesn't mean that one person makes it. It means there is no editorial oversight. This is a transit enthusiast website, not oversighted by the city of Toronto. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I just added a new sourced section regarding Parliament legislation due to issues regarding this road. There seems to be enough coverage to pass our notability guidelines. Regarding the claim that Toronto Transport is a "self-published" source, while not the New York Times, it's not published by a "self" and in fact has many writers and it does have editorial control over its content and is considered a reliable source per WP:RS. --Oakshade (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That section had nothing to do with the road, and so I've removed it. Lets not puff it up with a bunch of irrelevant and trivial information in hopes that this somehow makes the road notable. Your interpretation of the term "self-published" is appreciated, but is your own opinion and has no connection with the actual policy we follow, WP:SPS. Point me to the page that says they have editors, unless you are just making that up? There is no about us page. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How about their masthead where James Bow is listed as the chief editor. - SimonP (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Transit Toronto is an information site written and designed by transit enthusiasts for transit enthuasiasts." says enough. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- After doubting the existence of an about page listing an editor, and denigrating Oakshade's honesty, you're shown an about page listing an editor and this is your response? Don't you think some sort of apology might be in order? - SimonP (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, and I very much doubt Oakshade's "honesty". My assuming good faith has long long long expired on this user. My response is pointing you to the statement on the website that indicates its an enthusiast website, which means its self published. No more reliable than SABRE. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:RELIABLESOURCES has no "banning" of sources that are "enthusiast" organizations. As long as the source is independent of the subject and there is editorial oversight (of which your admitted bad faith refused to admit) as this source does, it is considered a reliable source per WP:RS. --Oakshade (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, and I very much doubt Oakshade's "honesty". My assuming good faith has long long long expired on this user. My response is pointing you to the statement on the website that indicates its an enthusiast website, which means its self published. No more reliable than SABRE. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- After doubting the existence of an about page listing an editor, and denigrating Oakshade's honesty, you're shown an about page listing an editor and this is your response? Don't you think some sort of apology might be in order? - SimonP (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Transit Toronto is an information site written and designed by transit enthusiasts for transit enthuasiasts." says enough. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How about their masthead where James Bow is listed as the chief editor. - SimonP (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That section had nothing to do with the road, and so I've removed it. Lets not puff it up with a bunch of irrelevant and trivial information in hopes that this somehow makes the road notable. Your interpretation of the term "self-published" is appreciated, but is your own opinion and has no connection with the actual policy we follow, WP:SPS. Point me to the page that says they have editors, unless you are just making that up? There is no about us page. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing administrator and all participants - The nom has removed an entire sourced section about this road and its impact of events on the road on national legislation. This is a textbook case of removing content and sources establishing notability and then claiming the topic is non-notable. --Oakshade (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ...right, except I stated directly below your !vote that I was doing just that, as the content has nothing to do with the road. It has to do with residents whose nearest arterial road is Birchmount. The tracks cross Birchmount and travel north of subdivisions, they do not travel along Birchmount; if that were the case the content would be relevant. Making a bold announcement in an attempt to sabotage my trustworthiness just looks silly, especially when I've made no attempt to hide what I did. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There is nothing special about Birchmount Road. The references noted above do not denote notability for this road. -- Whpq (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Every road does not warrant a wikipedia page. Seems like a way to fluff up edit numbers for some people, but this road is simply not important. 76.10.182.33 (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC) — 76.10.182.33 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Hey, when you have newspapers coming to you to write stories on you based on your prolific edit count... I've also had this intuition. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are being quite nasty and personal about this. What is you problem? Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Poor editors with poor editing habits that can't properly source the content they add most of the time. Who insist on keeping every quasi-notable topic in a separate article without actually putting effort in to improve those articles (unless there is threat of them going away). Who insist on adding irrelevant or inaccurate information based on Google Maps, and arguing against a person who lives around the corner from these places saying that its misleading to direct people to a place that can't be reached, just because they're next to each other. When you've dealt with it for 6 months, it becomes tiring. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yes! But you cannot impose your perfection on others. There should probably be a page listing all the concession roads in the Geographic Township of Scarborough, where similar minor roads could be merged. Nobody seems to be aware that the grid pattern in Scarborough does not match the original Township of York (most recently Toronto, North York, East York and Borough of York), which does not match the Township of Etobicoke either. That blatant ignorance has annoyed me for years. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I had created one for all of Toronto, and wasn't opposed to splitting it by some fashion to achieve the final structure... Unfortunately all the road articles, such as this one, were puffed up with a table of pictures and not deleted, making for redundancy. As an off-topic, Scarborough Township was laid out in the same chainage as Pickering, whereas the portion of Toronto between the Humber and Vic Park were laid out in the same grid as York. Etobicoke was surveyed seperately. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yes! But you cannot impose your perfection on others. There should probably be a page listing all the concession roads in the Geographic Township of Scarborough, where similar minor roads could be merged. Nobody seems to be aware that the grid pattern in Scarborough does not match the original Township of York (most recently Toronto, North York, East York and Borough of York), which does not match the Township of Etobicoke either. That blatant ignorance has annoyed me for years. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Poor editors with poor editing habits that can't properly source the content they add most of the time. Who insist on keeping every quasi-notable topic in a separate article without actually putting effort in to improve those articles (unless there is threat of them going away). Who insist on adding irrelevant or inaccurate information based on Google Maps, and arguing against a person who lives around the corner from these places saying that its misleading to direct people to a place that can't be reached, just because they're next to each other. When you've dealt with it for 6 months, it becomes tiring. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are being quite nasty and personal about this. What is you problem? Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, when you have newspapers coming to you to write stories on you based on your prolific edit count... I've also had this intuition. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:51, 10 July 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.