Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Water Street, Vancouver

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The result was Withdrawn by nom.. Admr Boltz 20:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Water Street, Vancouver[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article makes no effort to prove its notability. This is a non-notable street that could be easily covered in List of roads in Vancouver. Admr Boltz 06:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. —œ ^™ 07:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't we have a CSD criteria for articles that make no indication of their notability? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. sadly there's not CSD for non-notable subjects except bands and businesses. Imzadi 1979 → 06:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Historic Vancouver street with many landmarks. And WP:JNN is a poor argument for deletion. -- œ ^™ 07:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you go by the guidebooks, Water Street is one of Vancouver's major tourist destinations, both for historical reasons (one of Van's original streets) and for shopping/restaurants. Lacking a specific notability guideline for streets, this should meet the GNG. The Interior (Talk) 07:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For supposedly being these things, the article makes no mention of that (aside from "several landmarks, including the steam clock"). These points are moot. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So? That only means the article is incomplete, needs expansion. That's not a reason to delete a notable topic. -- œ ^™ 08:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly a good reason to redirect it to a list of the arterial roads in Vancouver, where that information can be added until such time as it merits a seperate article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 08:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it already 'merits' a separate article.. the topic is notable.. it's just an incomplete article, meaning it needs 'fixing' not deletion. Redirection is indeed an option, but only for the fact that noone currently has the inclination to improve it and low-quality stubs adversely affect Wikipedia's professional appearance, not because it's an unnotable topic. -- œ ^™ 08:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not every notable topic merits a unique article right now. It's almost a flipside to WP:DEADLINE if you think about it. Regardless, there is no prejudice against recreation when someone does have the time to make something of it besides a couple short paragraphs. Preserving the current article history is a benefit of redirection that makes it a far cry from outright deletion; the old article will be there for someone to start with. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 08:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So if I read you right, we should proceed to start redirecting all stub articles that meet the GNG to other lists and articles? Or just this one? The Interior (Talk) 09:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where it's appropriate to create an article that merges a group of articles that share a very common trait which don't quite merit a seperate article at this point, resulting in one good article rather than a bunch of not good articles, without losing any information from those merged articles: Yes! This is essentially the pokemon test. The articles can always be split out at a later date when there is enough information to write a suitable article; the article history is available as a starting block and to attribute the old edits that were merged. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 09:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. You'd like to this street included in a Vancouver version of an article like your own - User:Floydian/List of roads in Toronto. Which is an admirable solution to stubs on marginally important streets. In Vancouver's case, there is no such article. But honestly, if one were to collate a list of notable Vancouver streets that did warrant individual articles (like the navbox at Water Street does), this would be one. The Interior (Talk) 09:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally yes. I intended to do the same with Toronto; redirect all its terrible stubs to a nice article that sums up all the roads. Unfortunately too many editors are concerned with the number of articles on the encyclopedia, and not the quality of content. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this landmark (or is it the clock that is the landmark?) is so important, it should be discussed in the Vancouver article, as a couple sentences do not make an article. And not every landmark in every city needs its own article, mind you. I am sure Vancouver has numerous tourist attractions and landmarks without mention in any article, let alone their own freestanding article. Η936631 (talk) 09:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of roads in Vancouver. Dough 48 72 16:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The coverage is in depth, thus passing WP:GNG and it confirms the street is one of Vancouver's tourist destinations. The proposed redirect is to simply a list article. --Oakshade (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What coverage? How is this even remotely in-depth, it doesn't even say where the road begins and where it ends! "Water street is a street in Vancouver." That's what you consider in-depth? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rough Guide alone devotes a whole section to this street not just "Water street is a street in Vancouver." Don't know where you got that from. There's no requirement that a source states "where the road begins and where it ends!" Sorry you're angry. --Oakshade (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And that can't go in the notes on the list because...? And actually yes, that is the bare essential information for one of these articles, various wikiproject guidelines denote that, and this one doesn't even have that basic essential information. Its a two sentence note that can be merged until it is not a two sentence note. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than a "two sentence note" now. Even if it still was (which it wasn't btw), there was no reason to delete an article on a notable topic and redirecting only would've served to discourage editors who would want to expand it.--Oakshade (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a frequently expounded upon topic outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the world, just because our article is a piece of crap does not mean that there are not resources in the world to make it a good article. As has been pointed out, there are alot of sources to draw upon, since this is an oft-mentioned street in connection to Vancouver, and not some slightly-mentioned street. As the current state of the article is crap, temporarily redirecting it to the list article would be fine until a better version is written, but it should not be an enforced decision to always redirect the article. 64.229.101.119 (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, that's why we have to discuss these sort of changes unfortunately. It seems almost common sense that if all the information is moved somewhere else, and readers will be redirect to that infomation, that nothing is lost in that process. There are resources to make almost every one of our 3.5 million articles into good, referenced articles. Editors just need to invest time into actually researching a topic before they add it here, instead of making a new page to add two sentences. Why can't there be an article on the streets of Vancouver, instead of an article for each street in Vancouver? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a good article now, but is clear that it could be someday. - SimonP (talk) 18:39, 6 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.