Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackpool Border Crossing


 * 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   keep.  MBisanz  talk 07:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Blackpool Border Crossing
No other articles exist on any specific border crossings into and out of the United States, not even the busiest one of them all in San Ysidro, California. Additionally, two of the three external links in the article leads to an invalid page, and the only working one is simply an aerial google image. This is borderline WP:PROD to be honest. --Nicholas Weiner (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Err.. See Category:Mexico-United States border crossings and Category:Canada-United States border crossings, and specifically San Ysidro, San Diego, California. All these are covered.  Generally, geographic locations have been held to be notable in the past and I don't see what is different about a border crossing that distinguishes it from these. JulesH (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment so far, the only sort of man-made places where we always keep the articles are inhabited villages or towns, not individual buildings. This may be significant, but I'm not sure. It's essentially like making an article for each named rest area on a turnpike. Maybe we should, but I'm not sure we have a precedent. DGG (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Canada – United States border crossings. The key information is already in that article and the unsourced statements in the last para can easily be included if they can be sourced. To keep this as a separate page, I think that there needs to be evidence that it can be expanded beyond a stub. Since, at the moment, the main article does the job I am not convinced that having its own page is needed. Smile a While (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep As the largest border crossing in Quebec and a major port of entry for eastern Canada it should remain. It may not be seen as important from an American perceptive for its size, however, in Canadian terms it is important. The majority of the passenger and freight traffic entering the United States from the greater Montreal area pass through this crossing. The dead links were working when they were placed there. They have since been removed. They were of importance while they existed. One was a traffic camera looking at the crossing and another explained the importance of the crossing for the economies of Quebec and upstate New York. Looking at a road map of the area, one can see how geography and road infrastructure play an important part in its large volume of traffic. It is not only a collection of buildings but it has its own little community which as grown around it to support the large numbers of people passing through it. Recent investment and expansion at the facility underscore it importance to Quebec. One can read Government of Canada to Fund Expansion at Border Crossing Facility in Lacolle, Quebec, McLellan to probe security at Quebec border crossing and Quebec — New York Corridor for facts and figures to how and why it is important and also why it should have its own article. Sirtrebuchet (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle, Quebec until/unless the above information specific to the crossing is incorporated and cited in this article. Until then, the redirect as suggested will do (with a mention in Champlain, New York), but its importance/notability would be more easily demonstrated if there were citations from reliable sources from both sides of the US-Canada border. Also, the redirect preserves the previously-written text for later use, unlike a deletion. A side note: if a reader is expected to "figure out" the importance of something that has a Wikipedia article, that article is not doing its "job" of stating what it is... and why it's here. B.Wind (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the misunderstanding. The quote "for facts and figure to how and why it is important" was a typo. It should have read "for facts and figures to how and why it is important". I was hesitant to write a more lengthy bit, so i included some links to show that this place really does deserve a mention on Wikipedia. I have since edited the typo. Thanks. Sirtrebuchet (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 04:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete Notability isn't inherited from being a border crossing, and I can't find any independant, reliable sources that document why this is a notable crossing, with the weak exception of it being the busiest border crossing in Quebec. A redirect to Saint-Bernard-de-Locolle would be appropriate also. Themfromspace (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's custom and practice that geographic locations are notable.-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  10:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep And it appears other US-Canada border crossings do have articles at this point so that argument for deletion fails. Collect (talk) 14:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid justification for keeping an article nominated for deletion. B.Wind (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not, but when the deletion argument essentially boils down to "other stuff doesn't exist", it's pretty much necessary to point out that said argument is objectively wrong in its claim. Bearcat (talk) 05:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment -- That's precisely my point. "Other stuff exists" doesn't justify keeping it.  The flip side of that is that "other stuff doesn't exist" doesn't justify deletion.  Make sense?-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  10:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is no place for hostility. I believe WP:CIVIL covers this. B.Wind (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  23:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  23:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As has already been pointed out, lots of articles exist about border crossings on the Canada-United States border, and the Mexico-US border as well, so that argument doesn't hold much water at all. And beyond that, I think the past consensus that geographic places and highways are both sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia both apply here. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 05:46, 22 January 2009 (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.