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 for lack of nontrivial coverage in sources. Wikipedia is not a directory. None of the people saying "keep" gave a valid reason why these roads belong in an encyclopedia. Having heard of them means nothing. Friday (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roads near Markham, Ontario[edit]

All six of these roads are non-notable and lack non-trivial secondary sources. Wikipedia is not a directory of every street in the world. --- RockMFR 00:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Woodbine Avenue is a high-volume road which has a racetrack named after it and considerably more history than many city streets. --Eastmain 00:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- High-volume is not an indicator of notability. --- RockMFR 01:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - ... but history is — if it can be shown, by Eastmain or anyone else citing sources, that that history has been recorded in depth in multiple published works. "There's history for us to record." is not an encyclopaedic argument, since it depends from original research. "There's history that has been recorded." is an encyclopaedic argument. Uncle G 01:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Woodbine with racetrack article (if race track does not exist, create) delete the 5 other non-notables, there is no loss of knowledge here, you can verify the existence of all these streets in a street directory. -- Librarianofages 01:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - merge proposal is faulty - as a basic map sources will demonstrate, Woodbine Avenue (east of Hwy 404 and Don Valley Parkway) has nothing to do with the Woodbine Racetrack which is well to the west in Rexdale, except in name only. Dl2000 02:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Woodbine per Librarianofages, but delete the rest. I love road articles, but there has to be some history to prove notability otherwise it is just roadcruft. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Woodbine, delete rest. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 02:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Are we running out of server space? The article creator is currently on a wikibreak except for weekends, and may not respond to this AfD nomination within the five days, because it was listed on a Tuesday; however, might appreciate the chance to improve the articles and then recreate them in the mainspace with citations as to notability. —Carolfrog 04:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At least one of these articles has existed for nearly two years, and been expanded in that time. It seems likely that each has a story to tell. Note that they are linked from the (relatively new) ((Streets in Toronto)) - should they be:
1. removed from that template
2. unlinked from the template, but listed in it, and unlinked from other references
3. left as red links from there and any other links
4. nominate the template for deletion too
--Scott Davis ^Talk 04:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all are linked from ((Streets in Toronto)) - some are from ((Roads in Markham)). I support Delete for Rockingham Court, Wilmort Court, and the row of that template "Locals (Teritary Roads):" [sic], but Keep the others. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless sources can be found demonstrating that the streets themselves are notable. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Akhilleus. No sources evidencing notability. --Shirahadasha 07:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Al-Bargit 11:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-known street. Skeezix1000 12:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Woodbine Avenue ~~as it's a concession road and definitely notable (Jane, Kipling, Kennedy, Bathurst, Dufferin, Yonge, Bayview, Leslie, and Victoria Park all have articles about them).~~ I don't know about the others, though. dcandeto 17:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment OK, so it's not a concession road, but it's still well-known. dcandeto 17:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete allSYSS Mouse 17:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nomination as non-notable streets. Inkpaduta 18:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tag them as needing sources for a month and then come back here if none turn up. Look at the John Street article, if we could source the claim that "John Street is served to relieve traffic on Steeles Avenue, and Highway 7", that's a piece of history that could prove useful to someone. Hiding Talk 20:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Woodbine - it is definitely a notable, high-volume Toronto-area thoroughfare. The others might have a more dubious claim in this regard. Fishhead64 21:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- Fishhead64 21:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into an article listing important local roads in the town. Maybe something like List of municipal roads of Markham, Ontario. If there is enough that can be said about the road other than its route description, some could be split into their own article. I am not familiar with the area to judge which ones are notable enough. --Polaron | Talk 01:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep all. All streets are notable, especially Woodbine and John, are notable high-volumed roads in Markham. Woodbine is a truckers' favourite route, and John is the latter for York Regional Road 71, and Wilmort Court has the most valuable houses in Markham. Henderson is also medium-volumed, known for its residential and industrial mixed. Smcafirst | Chit-Chat posted at 02:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Smcafirst. Stephy100--A person who loves music! 02:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I !voted above, but I wanted to clarify that I am supporting keeping all the articles under discussion, in part beause of the points raised by Smcafirst. --Eastmain 02:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Smcafirst, but concur with Hiding that the articles could be tagged with ((unreferenced)) or ((fact)) if needed. Unref tags should have been the first resort anyway, instead of just slapping on the AfDs - building up WP by adding sources, verifiability etc. is better policy than simply tearing things down. We should note that Arterial and Collector roads are the most notable designations of roads in urban areas - most roads listed are arterial or collector and should therefore be automatically notable. The only local-class roads in the list are 1) Rockingham Court which is admittedly iffy, but should be given a chance to demonstrate notability first; and 2) Wilmort Court which claims notability as having "the most expensive real estate in Markham". Dl2000 03:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not confuse subjective importance with notability. A subject is not automatically notable, nor is it notable because of unsourced assertions within its article. I don't think these articles can ever be sourced enough to be in Wikipedia, so I did not bother with piling on the tags. --- RockMFR 03:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith. And don't confuse the guidance on notability with the policy on attribution. Notability is just as subjective as importance. Hiding Talk 19:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia Notability" is not subjective a subject must have sufficient sources written to right an encyclopedic article. Most of these article probably cannot be sourced to this level, if in fact they do then they are notable. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you notice, Wp:importance redirects to WP:N, hence my point that they are both subjective. And if you care to notice that we are arguing over notability, I would think that proves the point that it is subjective. Are you also suggesting that there will not be independent sources which discuss these roads? Like I say, play the game fairly. Tag the article and allow people to source. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia built from sources people can only find online. Furthermore, Wikipedia has no deadline, and it's only your opinion that "these article probably cannot be sourced to this level", or even that that level matters. Let's not present that opinion as an actuality. Let's all assume good faith and at least entertain the idea that articles could be written on this subject. A month in clean up kills nobody. Hiding Talk 10:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment. Local newspapers would have covered the design and construction of these roads in the overall context of their coverage of urban development and municipal politics, and they would also have been discussed in the minutes of the council of the municipalities in which they are located. I think that the sources exist, but since they predate the Internet, retrieving the sources would require a visit to a newspaper's clipping library or to a municipality's archives. --Eastmain 03:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Major arterial, 'nuff said. GoldDragon 00:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per GoldDragon Mix Precipitation 01:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So far most of the editors saying "keep" seem to be basing this on their own personal notions of the importance of these roads. This is unlikely to be seen as strong reasoning by the eventual closer of this discussion. My dog is important, to me, but this doesn't have anything to do with encyclopedias. What would make these valid topics for an encyclopedia is having sufficient non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Friday (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all unless they are sources proving notability. Rockingham Court is an article about a 100yd rd that 20 people live down, which is reasonably maintained. That is not an encyclopedia article. Nuttah68 11:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No denying that Woodbine is a major arterial in both Toronto and York Region. GoldDragon 19:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Woodbine starts in Toronto, passes through Markham and ends at Lake Simcoe near Keswick. It really can't be considered in the same AFD as two residential cul-de-sacs. I'm not convinced that it's sufficiently notable, because being a major local thoroughfare is not, in and of itself, a sufficient argument that a road deserves an encyclopedia entry — the bare minimum criterion for the notability of a road is whether it's at least reasonably plausible to expect that somebody who lives hundreds or thousands of miles away, and has never been to the city in question, might still have heard of the street. Streets like Yonge, Bay, Bloor, Spadina, Eglinton and Queen certainly pass that test; I'm not convinced that Woodbine does. But in a misguided batch nomination, I'm going to give it the benefit of the doubt. So: keep Woodbine, and redirect Wilmort to Cachet, Ontario. Delete the others; being a local collector route is not a sufficient claim of notability. Bearcat 09:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Woodbine. Deet 12:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as least Woodbine) per as many said above.--JForget 18:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to keep the minor streets, group them in one article, as in Vaughan Road and Oakwood Avenue in the article Oakwood - Vaughan, although these two streets are minor collector streets. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnny Au (talk • contribs) 17:43, 6 March 2007 (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.