Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 236 (Onondaga County, New York)

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 no consensus. Its only claim to notability is historical significance, and that is precisely what has not been settled in this AfD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

County Route 236 (Onondaga County, New York)[edit]

The article does not assert why the route is notable. Consensus (see WP:USRD/NT) is that intracounty county routes are not notable and precedent (WP:USRD/P) is that intracounty routes that do not assert why they are notable will be deleted. In terms of this article, the history that is given has little to do with the road itself and doesn't explain why the highway is notable - it reads more like a history of Marcellus than it does the history of a highway within it. I am aware this passed Good Article; however, GA does not factor in notability in its evaluation of articles, so its GA status should not be a factor in whether this article is kept or deleted. – T M F 16:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've learned in the past that GA's can be deleted. Indeed, this article tells us very little about the route itself and more about Marcellus. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is a county route (by consensus deemed to be not notable as a general rule) that contains only a dry description of the alignment and some snippets of the designation history. It has some history of street names that don't really relate to "CR 236" except that CR 236 was assigned to those streets. --Polaron | Talk 17:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Marcellus (town), New York without a redirect as this is an unlikely search term. The information is significant within the context of that article. Drawn Some (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there was a list of county routes for Onondaga County, this route should be merged into that list. Since that article does not exist, we should temporarily place the information in Marcellus (town), New York as this road does not warrant an individual article. Dough4872 (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a road article person but if that kind of article is considered appropriate then just move this one to that title. It would be a very incomplete list but oh well. Drawn Some (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable per precedent, and fails WP:IINFO; we don't need a turn-by-turn description of every road, trail, and path in the U.S. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It is a well sourced article that meets WP:N, sod the individual wikiproject guidelines. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please show where this establishes notability. – T M F 19:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." - check the references section. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only coverage that actually relates to CR 236 itself are DOT quadrangles (that doesn't make anything notable - every CR in the state is shown on them) and a human interest story. – T M F 19:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, history section establishes notability, and to Juliancolton, no articles are inherently unnotable. --Aqwis (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said they were; I simply pointed out that this article, as an unremarkable county route, likely does not satisfy notability requirements. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's bull. How does pointing out the origins of road names make a road notable? When this route's article shows the kind of notability New York State Route 104 does, then we can talk. – T M F 19:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"We can talk" when this article meets the general notability criteria, WP:N, which it does now - it has received "significant coverage" in reliable sources such as The Post-Standard. You may also find that the history section does not only "point out the origins of road names". --Aqwis (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So anytime any local road is discussed in a newspaper it automatically becomes "notable"? Wow... – T M F 19:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And half of the history does point out the origins of road names. The third paragraph is a long-winded way of saying CR 236 was assigned by 1989. The fourth has some detail of a proposed widening in 2003, but readers are left wondering if it was ever performed. Overall... horrible article. – T M F 19:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Overall... horrible article." - then improve it, not delete it. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I if I don't think it should exist? – T M F 20:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Jenuk said, its being a "horrible article" (I must agree that it should not have been promoted to GA status) does not matter. It has received significant coverage in reliable sources (independent of the subject) and that's really the only thing that matters. --Aqwis (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that the county highway designation has not received significant coverage independent of the subject. --Polaron | Talk 20:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant" is subjective. Two articles about the road that CR 236 happens to be assigned on sure as hell ain't significant to me. – T M F 20:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is significant as long as CR 236 is actually assigned to that road, which it currently is and is likely to be in the future. --Aqwis (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CR 236 is the internal designation by the county but everyone should be aware that this is not a signed route. Many locals might not even know that these particular set of streets is "CR 236". --Polaron | Talk 21:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have no interest in the deletion discussion, I do take offense to the claim that the article should not have passed a GA review. As the reviewer, I looked through the article several times to ensure that it met the GA criteria. Notability is a separate issue, unrelated to the GA process. If you can identify a reason that the article should not have been promoted to a GA, please let me know. Otherwise, your comment is groundless and insulting. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is for the streets themselves not for the entity known as "CR 236" and is better discussed in the community article. --Polaron | Talk 19:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well sourced article. Meets WP:N in my opinion. Killiondude (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For those arguing keep, please link to the sources that allow County Route 236 to pass the notability guidelines. Cunard (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not establish any kind of notability. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numbered routes are usually notable. A google search has turned up some seemingly reliable sources. Sebwite (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of a suitable list article, Merge to Marcellus (town), New York or Delete. Although the sources show verifiability, this does not automatically make it notable enough - from WP:N ""Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article." (emphasis mine). The specific notability guidelines at Wikipedia:USRD/NT#Secondary state highways and_county highways state that (paraphrased) "Few county roads are notable enough for their own article. It is imperative when writing about such a highway that notability is clearly demonstrated". Nothing in this article, or this deletion discussion, demonstrates that this road is notable outside the town it's located in - indeed there is some debate about whether it is notable even at that level. Thryduulf (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The notability guidelines at Wikipedia:USRD/NT#Secondary state highways and_county highways also state that those that are notable include "roads with other special historical significance". To me, it seems that a road that exhibits such a variety of town history (the historic presence of gypsies, wooded character of the area before clearing and the tenacity of the settlers in clearing it (Stump Road), the geological features of the area (Limeledge Road), etc. is notable enough for inclusion. I certainly enjoyed/valued reading explanations of the names of these roads. I drive this area often, and will certainly go get some pictures to add to the article should it be kept. Lvklock (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds like a wonderful argument for merging it into the article about the local area. Thryduulf (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It sounds like there will now be another good local editor, alert to potential improvements of the article, probably a Syracuse newspaper reader. Lvklock has added pics to road articles before, and has done pics and writing for many NRHP and other historic sites articles. I think this is good reason for Keeping, that there is positive local editor support which will likely address all the complaints here in this AfD. doncram (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are many reliable sources cited here. While all might not be in-depth, WP:N states "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." If there was just once source, say the NYDOT, then I wouldn't think this passes WP:N. But the multiple reliable sources combined demonstrate inclusion worthiness. --Oakshade (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I repeat my request: For those arguing keep, please link to the sources that allow County Route 236 to pass the notability guidelines. Cunard (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, internet hyperlinks to sources are not required by WP:N to demonstrate notability. Print sources are just as valid. Secondly, as per my argument, the sheer number of sources (many that are linked in the article) demonstrate notability per WP:N.--Oakshade (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please elucidate which sources that are linked in the article prove notability, and which print sources prove this road's notability? Cunard (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find the sources, even maps which are reliable sources, linked in the article valid and I consider it pointless to cut and paste them here.--Oakshade (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google/Yahoo-generated-maps do not establish notability. Google Maps and Yahoo! Maps show maps of many, many locations, but Wikipedia is not a directory. After looking through the sources in the references section, I cannot find any reliable sources in the article that mention County Route 236 in depth. Again, please link to the sources which do establish notability. Cunard (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion that maps are not reliable sources is noted. I believe they are. Nobody is claiming they are "in-depth" coverage of the topic, but they do confirm the content and the sheer number of them, along with the other sources cited in the article, do establish notability per WP:N. Any more reqeusts for links to be typed into this AfD will be ignored as my response has been already stated, twice.--Oakshade (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maps are not inherently reliable or unreliable sources. It's better perhaps to think of them as primary or secondary, and remember that most of these are road maps intended for driver navigation, not researching the history of a road. Most maps are primary sources, including the ones in this article. One has to take great care in citing primary sources... especially non-prose ones, and it doesn't seem that care has been taken here, in several places the article draws original conclusions based on the maps. If nothing else this sort of primary-source interpreting research is not something I'd consider part of a good encyclopedia article. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My driveway is shown on Google Maps. Perhaps my driveway is notable? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coming soon from the writers of the CR 236 article, "Julian Colton's driveway has black asphalt and clearly a few potholes, indicating he should get it resurfaced. Further down the road, there is a gravel driveway leading to a red-doored garage. As Red is the color of the local sports team, it's likely he's a fan. A 1998 satellite photo reveals the garage didn't exist then, so perhaps the owner became a fan during the intervening period." And if there were an inline citation after every sentence, it would pass GA sweeps... --Chiliad22 (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade, your inability to provide even one source that establishes notability per WP:N concerns me. As seen in the AfD cited by TenPoundHammer, the closing admin placed little weight on votes that did not provide quality references. My simple request was for you to find sources that established notability so that I could vote keep. Your refusal to do so does not help the case of this article.
I have read through this article and have been unable to see the notability of this road. A Google News Archive search returns no results about this road, while a Google search returns no reliable sources. As a result, my vote is delete this article which is full of original research and which lacks suitable sources to conduct a merge. Cunard (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lvklock. Appears notable to me, it will get pictures soon, and I expect more documentation will emerge with more local wikipedia editor awareness now, who might get access to who knows what printed documentation at the Marcellus town library and so on. I believe that the main original editor of the article is not local, because I noticed in the past that he asked Lvklock to help with pictures of other roads in the area. It can only get better now. doncram (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a pic of Limeledge Road (CR 236A) and Glover Street (CR 236C) from a trip to Syracuse in May. Now, being this is my article, this is really hard to say what my decision is. The irony of this AFD compared to County Route 35 (Warren County, New York), which is also at AFD, is strange.Mitch/HC32 15:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficiently important highway--some country highways are, some are not. DGG (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the point is this particular one is not one the the important ones. It is not even signed. --Polaron | Talk 15:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week delete the vast majority of this article is sourced to stuff people saw on maps on webpages (primary sources in this case)... which is an absurd way to write an encyclopedia article. As far as I can tell there are three non-map sources that actually mention this road... one gives the origin of three names the road is called, but that's it and they're all very obvious origins, given the lack of sources one wonders if the author just made a logical guess. The other two sources are newspaper articles about one planning incident... this is not really what I consider in depth coverage. You could probably write an article like this about any street in America if you let yourself cite maps for 95% of the prose, then cite local newspaper articles that inevitable mention local streets here and there. Off the top of my head I know I could write an article on the tiny residential street i grew up on with sources comparable to this article... there was a controversy over bulldozing a house to make a parking lot in the 1980s (3 newspaper articles at least), and it's been on plenty of maps over the years, and there's even a neighborhood group webpage that speculates about the origin of its name. --Chiliad22 (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Unlike other articles on county-maintained roads, like Brockway Mountain Drive this article doesn't give any reason why it is notable. There's nothing in the article that couldn't be summarized and covered elsewhere. There is even some debate over whether a resident living on the roadway in question would know that the road carries a numerical designation. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2009 (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.