Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glover Road

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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glover Road[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think this should be deleted, wikipedia is not a map and it does not show any inherent notability at all. It might be redirected to Fort Langley but I don't think that it adds anything to that article and I'm sure there are loads of glover roads in the world so pretty counterproductive in my view. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I wrote this article was to help fill in the "Roads of British Columbia" "Other Provincially Maintained Roads" Link Bar. If you don't like the fact the article has been written maybe you should discuss why there was a link bar created for it and other Provincially maintained roads instead of just a list in some article. It looks stupid to have a listing of dead links and I am trying to help with this by writing articles to fill these in. I would recommend an article be written for Westside Road next. Again I think you may need to debate why there are links to these roads if any thing at all. If it is decided to delete this article, then "Strathcona Parkway" should also be deleted. HyperbolicSheet (talk) 05:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As well, I have reviewed the other articles on roads in the BC area: it should be noted that we here in BC are very liberal in writing about our roads - there are numerous entries for major streets in the region that are shorter or less prominent than Glover Road. Glover Road is very important for Langley and has historical significance with its former life as a trail. If this article is deleted it would bring other articles into question regarding more minor routes.HyperbolicSheet (talk) 06:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- We'll see how comes out but this road doesn't have the same notability like Route 66 but please note that just because another area may be covered and has an article does not give this article a get out of deletion for free card. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the original presumption of notability here (inclusion in the existing template, etc.) seems to derive from the fact that it is maintained by the British Columbia Ministry of Transportation, as part of it is contiguous with British Columbia Highway 10 and the part that isn't may still be provincially maintained as an unsigned extension. (I can't figure that out definitively, though; it isn't listed in the section for unnumbered routes at List of British Columbia provincial highways, although it once was and most of the roads it's listed next to in the template still are.) In reality, that isn't a claim of notability that should get a road into Wikipedia in the absence of reliable sources attesting to the road's status and significance — most minor unnumbered routes have been deleted if valid sources couldn't be provided, but there are still a lot of lurking redlinks because other highway articles haven't gotten cleaned up to reflect the consensus against the automatic notability of such minor routes. And if the only sources you can come up with for the notability of such a route are maps, then that's not good enough — because every road is going to show up on a map, but that doesn't mean every road merits an article in an encyclopedia. Redirect to British Columbia Highway 10; the part that isn't part of Highway 10 has no demonstrated notability, and the part that is part of Highway 10 doesn't require two separate articles about the same thing. Bearcat (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what your trying to say and it would fit if I woke up one day and decided to write and article about Glover Road. However, I decided to write the article to fill in the holes so to speak on the major provincially maintained roads list - which by the way does include some regionally significant roads. In the interest of a balanced approach, there are roads in Vancouver that have their own articles and are shorter and in some cases newer. Also, I am of the view that many roads should be included because you cant get info some info about them from a map and some people absorb information better from a paragraph than a graphic. For instance Glover's former name is not on any common map, and when I find out who it was named after that may be of interest as well. Some information that cannot be included on road maps can only be posted on wikipedia - for instance plans for development, etc. People need a place to retain information in context (history, current events, relationships). My point is that what seemed superfluous yesterday may be progressive educationally tomorrow. I'd recommend keeping this article and encouraging its development along with other major roads. You really never know what others find useful and informative. HyperbolicSheet (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And my point is that while a map obviously verifies the fact that a road exists, it does not provide evidence that the road is sufficiently notable to warrant an article in an encyclopedia. A road is not automatically notable just because it exists, nor is it automatically notable just because it's older or longer than another road; rather, a road only becomes notable enough for an encyclopedia if you can properly document, via the use of reliable sources, that the road has significant cultural or historical or social context. Broadway, for example, is not notable because it's there; it's notable because it's the centre of one of the world's largest and most influential theatre districts. Yonge Street is not notable just because it exists; it's notable because rightly or wrongly it was once listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as the world's longest city street. Rodeo Drive is not notable just because it exists; it's notable because it's one of the world's most famous and most exclusive shopping districts. Lombard Street is not notable just because it's there; it's notable because its zigzagging switchbacks constitute one of the most iconic visual images of San Francisco.

If all you can do is describe a road's physical characteristics, then that's not a road that's notable enough for an article. If all you can cite for sourcing is maps, then that's not a road that's notable enough for an article. Most roads in most cities, in fact, don't qualify for encyclopedia articles at all — for a road to qualify, you need to be able to demonstrate far more than the fact that the road exists. Bearcat (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is cited as a historic crossroads for settlement of City of Langley. Canuckle (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Thank-you. I think Bearcat is trying to be too idealistic with what he thinks wikipedia should be vs. what it is. As I have said before this is not an immaterial street and it is joined by many other roadways in the Vancouver region which have articles. We are also here to continue to aggregate information and allow others to contribute and it may end up being even more interesting of a street than we currently know about. HyperbolicSheet (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm not being "too idealistic" — the very definition of notability is the existence and citation of reliable sources about the topic. That's not what Wikipedia "should be" in an ideal world; it's what Wikipedia "is".

A street isn't notable just because you say so; it's notable only if there are real, substantial sources (books, media coverage, etc.) that can be cited to demonstrate its notability. It's not notable just because you make unsourced or primary-sourced (i.e. to the city's own website) assertions that it has local significance; it's notable only if you can demonstrate a real, substantial, independently sourced reason why readers halfway across the country or the world might need or want to be interested in it. And yes, the reality of that is that streets in major, internationally famous metropolitan cities like Vancouver or Toronto or New York City have a much better chance of actually being notable enough for Wikipedia articles than streets in smaller cities like Langley do — because big city streets are much more likely to have good sources that can be cited, and are much more likely to have established some actual fame beyond the city's own borders.

City streets are not a class of topic about which an encyclopedia should have articles about "all" or even "most" of them — they're a class of topic for which the bar that they have to clear to be considered notable is extremely high, and for which an encyclopedia should only have articles about an extremely small minority of all the possible entries. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glover Road connected the birthplace of British Columbia in Fort Langley at one end to the origins of the (separate) City of Langley at the other end. It has been proposed that the article be redirected to Fort Langley and to Highway 10. Given that each only covers a portion, it would be inappropriate to redirect to one of them. While international fame may be helpful demonstration of notability, we should be careful about eliminating historic articles that may have legitimate notability within a sub-region. Canuckle (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, slight leaning towards a Merge to British Columbia Highway 10. This road is certainly notable as one of the historic trails in the area; however, it may make more sense to bulk up the Highway 10 article, whose notability is unquestionable. I think comparing this road to Route 66 is like comparing Nutella and crap. Wikipedia isn't a map, but it is a gazetteer, which describes important roads. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 19. Snotbot t • c » 15:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination seems quite incoherent while the topic seems to have an interesting history - see Graves have stories to tell. Warden (talk) 12:02, 27 June 2013 (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.