Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biscayne Wall


 * 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 and redirect to U.S._Route_1_in_Florida. Redirecting to the U.S. Route 1 article to prevent double-redirect. Nakon 01:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Biscayne Wall

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It may or may not literally be a hoax. The only source was dead and the internet search is circular since this page has been around for so long. I copied the content from the page to save it and put it in a sub page where it could be put in an article on Biscayne Boulevard which is more specific than the US Route 1 in Florida page. B137 (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * It is certainly not a hoax; I was the one who declined speedy for that idea. Yes, a search of plain Google turns up a lot of Wiki mirrors or sites that link to this article. But a search of Google News makes it clear that the term has passed into the language.    On the other hand, those are all just mentions; they are not enough to build an article around. So I think your idea of a merge/redirect to Biscayne Boulevard (which really does deserve its own article) is probably the best way to go. --MelanieN (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect. My searches yielded similar results to MelanieN's—it's not a hoax and is used in various sources, but there's not enough discussion to warrant a separate article—and I agree with her analysis. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2015 (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.