Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen's Quay (Toronto)

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. Redirect/merging discussions can continue on the talk page. (non-admin closure) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's Quay (Toronto)[edit]

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

Redirect to List of roads in Toronto#Queen's Quay. The useful content from the subject has been merged into the target. No need for a standalone article on this only half-notable street when it is better presented along with other nearby streets ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Important Note - Less than a week ago, List of roads in Toronto was a simple list with multiple wikilinks to articles of streets included in the list. It was only less than 7 KB long.
Here is what it looked like on February 3, 2011.
On February 3, the nom then took various contents from all of those articles and placed them in this list article and removed most of the wikilinks, including to Queen's Quay (Toronto).[1] That article is now over 109 kb, way too long per WP:SIZERULE. I suppose this was all part of an effort to delete most Toronto street articles and just have summaries in this new parent one and add content from his own userspace for streets that had no articles and this AfD is an extension of that effort.--Oakshade (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Imzadi 1979 → 17:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've greatly expanded it and added some more refs. - SimonP (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and kudos to SimonP. Why would we want to delete this article? Clearly (in my opinion) a notable street with many notable entities on it. Herostratus (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're not looking to delete it. We're looking to merge all of its information into a larger article. The places on Queen's Quay being notable doesn't make the street notable; the street itself needs some claim to notability. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that article is too long already. If all the information is to be kept, then whether Queen's Quay has a separate article or is an entry in a larger article is, to a certain extent, a technical question - which is most likely more use-friendly to a typical user? When articles get too long, it's often appropriate to break them out into separate articles for useability reasons. Sometimes that's not easy, but a list of streets lends itself very well to this. Herostratus (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, and I agree that the new article is very bulky at the moment. It was just made, so ideas are open to flow in. However, having one article for each of these streets is the opposite end of the overkill spectrum. A middle ground should be found. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess in the end, it kind of comes down to one's opinion. We don't really have a hard-and-fast guideline on this, I guess. We have WP:STREET, which seems like a reasonable essay but is, after all, just one's person suggestion. My opinion is: I like street articles. Herostratus (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep- This is articles for deletion, not articles for redirect. Redirect disucssions should be had on the article's talk page, not here. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Per nom. Dough 48 72 21:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, from a purely technical perspective AfD is not for redirection, use the merge templates for that. Over and above that, WP:STREET (which is admitedly a userspace essay) would suggest this might be notable as a prominent street. Are there any better guidelines for notabillity of streets?--ThePaintedOne (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Valid article of notable street in Toronto. Also merging all these into a super list article isn't appropriate as that article is getting far too large and should be split into smaller articles per WP:LENGTH. If it's notable enough for these streets to have multiple paragraphs in that article, then they're valid enough to be resplit down into individual articles again. Canterbury Tail talk 23:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This appears to be a major and historic street in Toronto. Far too much topic-specific content to move to an already far too large article that should be just a list anyway.--Oakshade (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keep. The sources already in the article are already fairly good, although a cynic might suggest that only one really talks about the street in any detail. Add in something like this, however, and notability would appear to be beyond doubt. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yes, I agree that this one's a slam-dunk, now. In addition to the Toronto Star ref mentioned above -- which cited is the article now -- I've even been reading about the street here in Montreal for years, as an example of a somewhat controversial redevelopment of the lakeshore. I believe there's room for expansion in this regard, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 8 February 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.