Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mavis/Chinguacousy Roads

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mavis/Chinguacousy Roads[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)

I'm not exactly sure if this article's scope is within policy, but that's not the reason I'm bringing this to AfD. Out of the secondary sources (all the article's sources are primary sources) I managed to find which aren't about events that happened on the road, only one ([1]) appears to have close to signifigant coverage of either of these roads. Due to this, it does not pass GNG. If the article is deleted, I suggest that Mavis Road be redirected to List of roads in Mississauga#Mavis Road. Username ⁶⁸⁹² _{(Peer Review)} 17:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Username ⁶⁸⁹² _{(Peer Review)} 17:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Username ⁶⁸⁹² _{(Peer Review)} 17:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - You could probably find several dozen other road articles for the Toronto area that are of similar notability that have articles that are essentially a list of transit routes and notable places along them. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see what sort of target "Mavis/Chinguacousy Roads" would have because the title is inclusive of both Mavis Road and Chinguacousy Road. List of numbered roads in Peel Region would not work because the only part that is a Peel RR is along Mavis (not Chinguacousy) north of Highway 407. Username ⁶⁸⁹² _{(Peer Review)} 21:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose. It just preserves the history for future use and redirects are cheap. I'd settle with delete though if it comes down to it. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Transportfan70 If there aren't enough references, I (the creator of the article) can add more. As for GNG, the roads have an interesting history as being part of 2 different corridors, with the one being bypassed, partitioned, and renamed.Transportfan70 (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Transportfan70, if you can find sources, add them! If the sources you add to the article (Do not just show them here) can prove that the roads are notable, I will switch to keep. Username ⁶⁸⁹² _{(Peer Review)} 01:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Transportfan70 Done.
The problem is that maps are directories and do not in of themselves impart any notability to a road. Try to find books or newspaper articles on a/the neighbourhoods the road travels through, as they may have portions dedicated to the history or role of the road if it is indeed significant and not a generic suburban thoroughfare improved from a dirt farm road in the 70s. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Transportfan70 Mavis isn't just a typical improved farm road. Parts of it are scratch-built and it was the location of the 1979 train derailment. As for Chinguacousy/Second Line, it was bypassed, broken up, and interlined with an extended Mavis, which adds an interesting historical element that many people may not be aware of. Transportfan70 (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Due to lacking multiple in-depth reliable secondary sources about the roads. One could argue it's notable in relation to the train derailment, but that seems to be about it and if in fact it is the case it's notable due to the train derailment, the it should be merged/redirected to an article about said derailment. Notability isn't inherited though and in this case, the sources do not exist to justify the article. That said, I'd be fine with a merge/redirect to another article if someone (hint, hint Transportfan70) wants to come up with one though. Just likely not List of roads in Mississauga#Mavis Road IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage of this in any of the sources presented. This is not a gazeteer. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "This is not a gazeteer." - Er, you may want to re-read the Five Pillars. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And what has that to do with the price of tea in China? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added more info on the history of 2nd Line and a photo. That makes it's interesting history more clear. Transportfan70Transportfan70 (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose split of the two subjects if this article is kept. Looking at the article the two roads only share the relationship of being in the same town. They don't cross each other at any point, and are probably miles apart. As is however I would still recommend deletion. I don't recommend the use of Google Streetview as sourcing, nor do I particularly approve of what appears to be a blog entry as a source. Nightfury 08:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ What's wrong with GSW as sourcing? Its accurate. Also, both roads do merge. Chinguacousy Road was once 2nd Line and is today a continuation of Mavis Rd. with the remaining section of 2nd Line being the original through road southwards, which the new Mavis extension displaced. That's historically interesting. And where's the blog entry source that makes for dubious accuracy? Transportfan70 (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Transportfan70 Duplicate vote removed. Username ⁶⁸⁹² _{(Peer Review)} 17:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source 9 is the cite in qustion; potentially could be user generated content. The maps on the article, if the highlighted roads are the subjects appear to not connect with each other. Nightfury 19:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They connect in OpenStreetMap. Although its technically "user generated" I'm pretty sure the road data in that area is based on government GIS sources. Which might be something to look into. Adamant1 (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They do indeed connect. I just described Mavis Rd first because it is further south and was originally the only road described in the article. The top of the first map is contiguous with the bottom of the second and the end of Mavis Rd. is shown in blue on it for clarity. As for the trail cite, it's from the trail website and thus there's no reasonable doubt to it's truthfulness. I can add a Google Maps reference to show the road and trail do intersect. Transportfan70 (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply being able to verify that a road exists is not the notability test — what is required to make a road notable enough for a Wikipedia article is historical, political or social context for what might make the road important, not just documenting its physical characteristics. (See WP:ROADOUTCOMES.) But this literally just does the latter, doesn't even attempt anything that would fulfill the context piece, and is referenced entirely to maps and primary sources rather than any external evidence of reliable source coverage about the roads. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)′[reply]

This road has historical significance due to it's function as two different corridors that became one, and the remnant section of one that is now a trail and side streets and still runs through a preserved village. Why doesn't the delete crowd here notice that? Transportfan70 (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Two different corridors that became one" is not what "historical significance" means. Try looking up New York's Christopher Street if you want a clue as to what kind of "historical significance" I'm talking about. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2020 (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.