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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of streets in Brooklyn[edit]

List of streets in Brooklyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Unencyclopedic list. Better as a category. BOARshevik (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We're not a Thomas Guide. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete wholly agree with nom. Useless list Ohconfucius (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Week keep and expand. What this was apparently intended to be was a list of namedstreets in brooklyn, the 5% or so that are not numbered or lettered streets. But its very incomplete, including some very minor streets and omitting some very major ones. Looking at the list, I think articles could be written about perhaps one-third of the ones here, and an equal number that are omitted. I'm not quite ssure how to deal with this. It might possibly be one place where a category might be better than a list, but then again it might be useful to have a checklist of which ones do have articles. Encyclopedias normally include atlases and gazeteers. We do not have a rule that WP is not a gazeteeer. DGG (talk) 05:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I notified the WikiProject New York City. DGG (talk) 05:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment From WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook or textbook):

Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not a place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel guides, culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet inclusion criteria, but Wikipedia does not list every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel, venue, etc. Such details may be welcome at Wikitravel, however. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 06:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And this list is , in fact, none of these: is lists no tourist attractions, hotels, etc. It's a weak attempt at a gazetteer. a listing of geographic places. Gazetteers are appropriate parts of encyclopedias. The omission from the NOT paragraph is deliberate. WP can include an atlas & an index to it--a gazetteer. I have in fact argued, with considerable support, e that in historic places, like the City of London and the old parts of Dublin and Edinburgh, every street is notable, and could with a little work be proven to be so. DGG (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Commment deleting this list does not prevent someone from writing an article about any of the streets. The vast majority would not meet criteria for notability or verifiability, however. There are streets in major cities that have been written about in-depth, even some in Brooklyn, but most of these would be never pass the bar to have an article. Drawn Some (talk) 07:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thus I think the nom's comment that this is better handled by a category. The nom's right, here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although I'm normally for keeping lists this one has so few links to articles and I can't see any way it can be expanded beyond a simple (possibly very long) list. 11:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
• comment. Looking at the index to an actual atlas, I see there are approximately 1500 named streets in brooklyn (and 500 numbered or lettered ones)--more than I thought. I agree the overwhelming majority of them are not notable. I'd guess that about 5 to 10% of them are, including a few of the numbered and lettered ones., let's say 150. For the present list there are 80, including most but not all of the best-known through streets, and a good many minor ones in historic districts, mostly Brooklyn Heights. I have in fact argued, with considerable support, that in historic places, like the City of London and the old parts of Dublin and Edinburgh, every street is notable, and could with a little work be proven to be so, as there is exhaustive coverage in print. . That obviously doesn't include all of the present day cities. Brooklyn is not as important, & only 350 years old, as those 3. For the older cities in the US, I think every street in their historic downtown core could be shown notable., and the major present day arterial streets. I'm not however about to do this, even my own borderline notable street, but they would make appropriate school projects. Redlinks of those for people who might want to do articles would be a good idea--it would save them from working on the truly non-notable. I note List of Streets in Manhattan , a much better conceived article, designed to cover the problem of the many notable numbered streets there, which is not quite the same problem. There are over 120 there with separate articles. DGG (talk)
• Delete I live in brooklyn, a borough filled with notable streets (guessing? 50 at least, 100 at most). This list? Spare us.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! I should buy you a $beverage! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 13:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• WikiProject U.S. Roads has been notified Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The vast majority of streets anywhere are non-notable. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a dangerous road to go down. The vast majority of people are not notable either. WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 12:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have no articles on the vast majority of people. Or if we do, I haven't got mine yet. :P —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The majority of the streets on the list are not notable enough. In addition, the article is just a list with no lead or appropriate formatting. Dough4872 (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – for an example of how this information can be re-purposed and handled properly, see Category:Streets in Boston, Massachusetts. Sswonk (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2009 (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.