Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beechwood Avenue


 * 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. Some sources were presented, but the general consensus is that while they meet WP:V, they do not satisfy WP:ROADOUTCOMES. Arguments that we have articles about other, less notable, roads, carry no weight. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Beechwood Avenue

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Local road lacking notability. Article is un-sourced and makes no explicit claim of notability. Without a substantive reason of some kind of significance (political, social, cultural, etc.), a local road is just an instance of WP:MILL. MB 04:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete—fails WP:GNG. If deleted, Template:Attached KML/Beechwood Avenue should be deleted as well.  Imzadi 1979  →  12:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep maybe passes WP:GNG, just barely. I see:
 * http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-streetside-spot-pilot-program-patio-parklet-1.3630158
 * http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/beechwood-village-merchants-worried-about-proposed-changes-1.2842084
 * http://www.metronews.ca/news/ottawa/2016/09/08/businesses-fear-impact-of-beechwood-bike-lanes.html
 * It's also singled out as a key walk, http://ottawacitizen.com/travel/5-worth-the-drive-urban-walking-in-ottawa

But I agree with the nominator that these refs don't amount to "valid relevant citations for the social, cultural, historical or political context of a road in depth," as required by WP:ROADOUTCOMES.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic   Nightfury  15:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete due to the article not making any claim that would give a reason to believe it to be notable. Unlikely to pass WP:GNG. Ceosad (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * keep this is a manor road in canada's capital — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottawahitech (talk • contribs) 11:07, 24 November 2016(UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles about roads are kept or deleted on the basis of whether the road has reliably sourceable political, social or cultural context that would make it something the world needs an article about, not just on the basis of being asserted, in an unsourced manner, as locally important to their own neighbourhood. Every road that exists at all could always claim to be locally important — the question is whether it's RSable as more than just locally important. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. By any standard there appears to be far less notable Ottawa roads within the navbox at the bottom of the page. Deleting most of those and keeping this (with a couple decent sources) seems a better option. -- Ace fitt 19:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Those need to be deleted too.  Do you have any sources that would show this road is notable and would pass GNG? MB 19:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. If somebody could properly source some context for the road's political, social or cultural significance as demanded by WP:ROADOUTCOMES, then we'd have a notable road that qualifies for a Wikipedia article. But as written, all this does is describe the road's physical characteristics — which is the kind of article that fails our notability criteria for roads. It's not enough to just assert that a road is important to its own neighbourhood; the notability of a road is determined by reliably sourcing some context for the road's political, social or cultural significance, not by just unreferencedly stating that it exists and has stuff on it (one or both of which things could be said equally of every single road anywhere on the planet.) Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * keep sources form which an article can be built about this street exist, , ,  plenty more.  major street in capitol city of major country.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My reading of WP:ROADOUTCOMES does not support deletion, in fact, it supports keep."An article that explains and provides valid relevant citations for the social, cultural, historical or political context of a road in depth is more likely to survive AfD than one which merely describes the road's physical characteristics." since such sources do exist for this major city street. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Social, cultural, historical or political context" is not equivalent to "any sources exist at all for anything whatsoever about the road". Bike lanes and summertime replacement of parking spots with lounge-decking for pedestrians are both remarkably common things that a lot of streets in a lot of cities have, not anything that makes a road "special" in any substantive way. "Named in a listicle as a lovely local walking spot" doesn't really cut it either — and the final source isn't really about the road, but just namechecks the road in the process of being about a community festival in the neighbourhood. So no, none of those sources are particularly compelling evidence that ROADOUTCOMES has been fulfilled here. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as nothing amounting to actual substance at all, and this is naturally best part of an actual list, not each their own articles. SwisterTwister   talk  02:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This one is a run of the mill road unfortunately. The sources do confirm that it exists, but there doesn't seem to be any particular social, cultural or historical significance. WP:WHYN specifically requires that we have enough third party sources so as to be able to write an article on it. I don't see enough sources discussing this in detail. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2016 (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.