Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodhaven Boulevard

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. John254 01:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Woodhaven Boulevard

Woodhaven Boulevard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

No assertion of notability. Fails the USRD notability guideline for city streets. Wholly unreferenced. —Scott5114↗ 14:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Here are a few sources that show its notability:
  • It was (and probably still is) a main route to the Rockaways.
  • It was widened significantly to carry this traffic. This included several bridges that turned it into an expressway (California definition).
  • It's part of the arterial system for eventual takeover by the state. Every other road on that map (other than Cross Bay Boulevard) is a parkway or numbered route.
  • It's been assigned the NY 908V number, which is in the parkway range (last digit 7-9), so NYSDOT considers it to be equal to a parkway.
• --NE2 16:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per NE2. The guideline referenced that the article fails is not even a guideline, it is a project subpage. --Holderca1 ^talk 16:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is established based on its status as a proto-parkway, which meets consensus on such roadways. It seems clear that WP:USRD/NT#City streets, which seems to be arbitrarily rigid and out-of-touch with general consensus standards on such roads, will need to be revisited and greatly expanded if it is to have any general acceptance as a guideline. Alansohn 16:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Pretty much the same as the Cross Bay Boulevard AfD - Also, I think this falls also under the WP:NYC jurisdiction, Woodhaven falls under ours as well, but this is more of their problem not ours. And same with NE2.^Mitch32^contribs 20:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Being a major boulevard in Queens is an assertion of notability. If it's unreferenced, then that's a case for editing, not deleting. As with the (failing) attempted deletion of Cross Bay Boulevard, the nom is equating "no sources currently in article" with "non-notability," despite the obvious notability of the topics. --Oakshade 07:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per NE2 et al. Cited at least once on King of Queens. I'm certain lots of references from a variety of reliable sources could be found. Tag for cleanup, stub it, watch it, and fix it next week. Bearian 20:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. It is a reference route, but the article needs much help to avoid being a permastub. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep it is a notable street —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasawat (talk • contribs) 20:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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.