Unscintillating (talk | contribs) keep |
→Unwin Avenue: this is not a bureaucracy, and plenty of arguments are being made. Voting keep purely on proceedural grounds has very little weight |
||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
*'''Delete'''. This minor industrial street links some noteworthy sites and has some name recognition in Toronto for being both a link to recreational sites along the waterfront and for its distinct atmosphere of industry, but is not noteworthy enough to merit inclusion as a separate article at this time. The article fails to make it clear or even possible that Unwin Avenue is significant in terms of factors such as history, geography, engineering, or urban design. There is nothing to suggest that such significance could be established in future edits. It's conceivable that some article will emerge establishing notability because it's, for instance, "the most contaminated street in Toronto" referencing the continuous vacant industrial properties along its length, but this is just speculation for the sake of example, not rooted in anything concrete at this point. [[User:A.Roz|A.Roz]] ([[User talk:A.Roz|talk]]) 04:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC) |
*'''Delete'''. This minor industrial street links some noteworthy sites and has some name recognition in Toronto for being both a link to recreational sites along the waterfront and for its distinct atmosphere of industry, but is not noteworthy enough to merit inclusion as a separate article at this time. The article fails to make it clear or even possible that Unwin Avenue is significant in terms of factors such as history, geography, engineering, or urban design. There is nothing to suggest that such significance could be established in future edits. It's conceivable that some article will emerge establishing notability because it's, for instance, "the most contaminated street in Toronto" referencing the continuous vacant industrial properties along its length, but this is just speculation for the sake of example, not rooted in anything concrete at this point. [[User:A.Roz|A.Roz]] ([[User talk:A.Roz|talk]]) 04:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' The first item on a Google search for [Unwin Avenus, Toronto] returns a map, so it is easy to prove that this topic is not a hoax. A search on [Unwin Avenue site:en.wikipedia.org] returns 13 unique pages, so the redirect is proven to be useful. I see no argument being made, and I am not aware of any such argument, that there is something objectionable about the edit history such that we need to delete it. That leaves no deletions to discuss, and therefore, no need for a deletion discussion. In summary, this is simply an ordinary article that needs to be [[WP:EP|improved]] or [[WP:ATD|merged]], both of which are topics for the talk page of the article, not the time of AfD volunteers. [[User:Unscintillating|Unscintillating]] ([[User talk:Unscintillating|talk]]) 04:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' The first item on a Google search for [Unwin Avenus, Toronto] returns a map, so it is easy to prove that this topic is not a hoax. A search on [Unwin Avenue site:en.wikipedia.org] returns 13 unique pages, so the redirect is proven to be useful. I see no argument being made, and I am not aware of any such argument, that there is something objectionable about the edit history such that we need to delete it. That leaves no deletions to discuss, and therefore, no need for a deletion discussion. In summary, this is simply an ordinary article that needs to be [[WP:EP|improved]] or [[WP:ATD|merged]], both of which are topics for the talk page of the article, not the time of AfD volunteers. [[User:Unscintillating|Unscintillating]] ([[User talk:Unscintillating|talk]]) 04:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC) |
||
::Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; the discussion is taking place here. Articles are deleted for far more reasons than being a hoax, having no hits on google or having an objectionable edit history. There are plenty of arguments, above, for you to object to, but ignoring them does not make them go away. You are essentially voting keep on a very weak edge-case claim of not following procedure. - '''[[User:Floydian|<font color="#5A5AC5">ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ</font>]]''' <sup>[[User_talk:Floydian|<font color="#3AAA3A">τ</font>]]</sup> <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Floydian|<font color="#3AAA3A">¢</font>]]</sub> 05:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:29, 14 March 2012
Unwin Avenue
- Unwin Avenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A minor industrial street in the portland of Toronto with some abandoned building lining it. The places along the street may be notable, but the road itself is a local street. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Here is a coutesy satellite view of this little street in a warehouse/port district.[1] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment -- I encourage this nomination to cite an actual policy, otherwise this looks like an instance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Geo Swan (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- WP:Notability and WP:GNG. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Could you please offer specific passasges you feel apply here? Geo Swan (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."
- ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information."
- Delete Completely unremarkable street. Not historical. Not a major thoroughfare. Delete entirely and do not redirect. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Would it be possible for you to refer to wikipedia policy or established convention in your comments? Even if, for the sake of argument, the conclusion of this discussion were for deletion, why, pray tell, would you preclude redirection? It has been a standard practice for roadways not considered sufficiently remarkable for their own articles. [2] Geo Swan (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- OK I agree. Redirect to Port Lands. Secondarywaltz (talk) 01:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- keep -- Roadways that go from point A to point B, and don't have any references that say anything notable about them don't merit individual articles. They can be covered in articles like List of east–west roads in Toronto. But when there are references that do say something notable about the streets, other than simply listing their terminii, then, I suggest, those articles should not be nominated for deletion. Unwin Avenue had a natural history drafted about it. Unwin Avenue has more than a page of commentary in one guide to pedestrians, and shorter mentions in several others. Geo Swan (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Don Peuramaki (1988). "Unwin Avenue: Cherry Beach to Leslie Street : a natural history of the area in the 1980s".
- Shawn Micallef (2011). Stroll: Psychogeographic Walking Tours of Toronto. Coach House Books. pp. 289–290. ISBN 9781770562615. Retrieved 2012-03-13.
- A reference does not make an independent article (content does). Most of the roads at the lists have several sources as well as a paragraph or two of text. This doesn't even meet the criteria for inclusion in those lists because this is not a major thoroughfare in any respect. The first source you have provided is two pages; likely a historical manuscript compiled by a historian at the local library (I use a similar source on Vale of Avoca). I sincerely doubt this text describes the road in any detail, but in any event the fact that you can't fill in any more details in the ref tells me that you do not have access to it. The second reference makes casual mention of Unwin, as it prepares to describe the actually significant Hearn Generating Station and other monuments of an industrial city gone-by. These monuments, as I've said, may be notable in their own right, but they afford zero notability upon the street that they line.
- If there was something of note here, I'd say merge it into List of roads in Toronto, but it doesn't even warrant inclusion there. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- You are correct. I do not have access to the natural history -- today. I am mystified why you do not recognize that a two page guide to the Natural History of this particular street shows an author felt that topic was remarkable enough to publish. I suggest that if the content of this guide was instead a two page chapter on Unwin Avenue, in a book on the Natural History of all streets near Toronto's waterfornt there wouldn't be any question that it would confer notability.
The Stroll reference does devote a page to Unwin Avenue. As do several other guides to tourists and strollers. You argue that it is really the monuments on the avenue that are notable. If the authors of these guides agreed with you they would not mention Unwin Avenue in a different manner. Have you ever taken a pedestrian tour? I've included references to several novels that have scenes set on Unwin Avenue. While I must admit they aren't that exagerrated, I looked past the Gothic impression they felt when they drafted those passages. Cherry Street between Unwin and the Keating Channel was the site of the first infestation of termites in Toronto. That is worth remarking on. The snow dump site on Unwin Avenue has had environmental consequences, as per the reference I added to the Civil Engineering Journal. Geo Swan (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- It's not a good indication of notability when you haven't read it, for all you know it doesn't cover the street itself in any detail. All these things do not make Unwin street notable, they are a collection of events that took place at places along the street. There are passing mentions of several hundred minor streets in Toronto in the books on the heritage and walking tours (both of which I've read as well as hundreds of plaques and boards scattered about the city). This street is simply not in of itself important at all, nor is it a major road, nor does the city give it any significance in their street classification system. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- You are correct. I do not have access to the natural history -- today. I am mystified why you do not recognize that a two page guide to the Natural History of this particular street shows an author felt that topic was remarkable enough to publish. I suggest that if the content of this guide was instead a two page chapter on Unwin Avenue, in a book on the Natural History of all streets near Toronto's waterfornt there wouldn't be any question that it would confer notability.
- Delete - Not notable at all. Dough4872 00:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. I can't see anything remarkable about this short street. Take a look on Google Street View at this street. It is a grimy industrial street, the kind you find in every city, down by the railroad tracks or along the waterfront. One wonders if the contributor intended the article as a memorial to the woman who was murdered there. Sadly, murders are not particularly notable either. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed. On a substantial article I'd see no issue with a brief mention that "The body of foo, the xxth murder of 20xx, was found on the street. A memorial was subsequently erected at 450 Unwin.[ref]"... but in this context it falls on the line of WP:NOTNEWS. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a verbal road atlas: we only cover the roads and streets that are of above-average significance. Wikipedia is not a street directory, and some of the arguments presented here (e.g. Geo Swan's comments) would result in a street directory if carried as far as possible. Nyttend (talk) 02:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. This minor industrial street links some noteworthy sites and has some name recognition in Toronto for being both a link to recreational sites along the waterfront and for its distinct atmosphere of industry, but is not noteworthy enough to merit inclusion as a separate article at this time. The article fails to make it clear or even possible that Unwin Avenue is significant in terms of factors such as history, geography, engineering, or urban design. There is nothing to suggest that such significance could be established in future edits. It's conceivable that some article will emerge establishing notability because it's, for instance, "the most contaminated street in Toronto" referencing the continuous vacant industrial properties along its length, but this is just speculation for the sake of example, not rooted in anything concrete at this point. A.Roz (talk) 04:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The first item on a Google search for [Unwin Avenus, Toronto] returns a map, so it is easy to prove that this topic is not a hoax. A search on [Unwin Avenue site:en.wikipedia.org] returns 13 unique pages, so the redirect is proven to be useful. I see no argument being made, and I am not aware of any such argument, that there is something objectionable about the edit history such that we need to delete it. That leaves no deletions to discuss, and therefore, no need for a deletion discussion. In summary, this is simply an ordinary article that needs to be improved or merged, both of which are topics for the talk page of the article, not the time of AfD volunteers. Unscintillating (talk) 04:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; the discussion is taking place here. Articles are deleted for far more reasons than being a hoax, having no hits on google or having an objectionable edit history. There are plenty of arguments, above, for you to object to, but ignoring them does not make them go away. You are essentially voting keep on a very weak edge-case claim of not following procedure. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)