Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brea Canyon


 * 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. Cbrown1023 talk 22:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Brea Canyon

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Stretch of road in California with no apparent importance. Can't see the encyclopedic value here. Pascal.Tesson 14:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep 552 news results. While a lot are just passing mentions... 552 is still a lot for a road. 552 people have found it notable enough to mention in articles. Some articles are just about the road, e.g. "Brea Canyon Road Widening Studied" in the LA Times. Shouldn't be an issue with WP:V/WP:N here (or whatever the policy is called today). --W.marsh 14:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But article should perhaps be renamed to Brea Canyon Road since that's what the article is about. --W.marsh 14:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Somehow the Google news search results fails to impress me. You do realize that a lot of these articles are of the form "car crash on Brea Canyon Road", "left lane of Brea Canyon Road closed this sunday" or "address of this company is 455 Brea Canyon Road". Sure, there's the LA Times story on widening the road but even that is pretty thin material to build an encyclopedia article. Note also that the current content is speculative OR. Pascal.Tesson 14:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We keep articles on state roads and even county roads without even really looking for sources sometimes... here's a road that at least has some unique, verifiable information in print about it. I didn't deny that a whole lot of it was passing mentions, but it still seems to be enough to create an article from. And that an article needs improvement obviously isn't a reason to delete, improvement seems possible here. Honestly a lot more possible than with some state road articles I've looked at. --W.marsh 14:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, maybe I'm just not sufficiently aware of common practice about county roads. It seems pretty pointless to have articles saying that road blah goes from X to Y but if consensus is that we should keep all of them, I won't argue. Pascal.Tesson 15:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - no evidence of notability; news reports on deaths on the road do not necessarily make the road itself notable per WP:N. What we really need is a specific notability guideline on geographical locations, to weed out articles like this (at the moment, many users seem to think that all major roads are inherently notable). Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  15:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment my last comment above got in edit conflict with this one. Interestingly enough, I agree with Walton that this should not, in the absolute, be kept but I am also concerned about consistency. I should point out that I'm pretty sure that the debate would be quite different if this was not a road in California. If the time ever comes where an article about a small road between La Roche-sur-Yon and Les Essarts, Vendée is created and nominated for deletion, it will be met with a flood of "delete, not notable, local road". Pascal.Tesson 15:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really think that's a fair argument, you have no way of knowing what I'd argue in a hypothetical alternate afd... and this is being met by a flood of "delete, not notable, local road" votes despite accusations of bias. --W.marsh 16:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * True, I'm speculating. But I do think that this is what would happen. Of course, this has no bearing on the present AfD and I don't want anybody to think I'm using this as an argument here. What I do think is that in the absolute, we should not be interested in keeping articles about local roads unless there's sufficient material to build a comprehensive encyclopedia article. This particular road does not meet this criterion. Pascal.Tesson 16:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is some precedent for notability of certain types of roads, such as US and state highways.  There is ongoing debate as to whether county roads meet the same precedent.  Otherwise there needs to be some claim of notability, which this road does not have.  The article also seems to be mostly unsourced statements and speculation.   A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing is, though, that Brea Canyon Road is not actually a county road by the legal definition. The only ones in Orange County, in fact, are S18 and (I think) S19, which forks off of S18 in Trabuco Canyon.  (Yes, I'm from the area. =) ) BCR is actually northwest of the beginning of S18 by about...oh, maybe eight miles as the crow flies. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 21:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reluctant delete. Strictly speaking, Brea Canyon is the name of the geographic area that the street that this article describes cuts through, but the only significance to Brea Canyon Road is that it's effectively an overflow/side road to California State Route 57, which it does indeed parallel for a short while, for commuting between Diamond Bar and Brea.  Beyond that, it's just another unnumbered road in my home state that connects my home county to the neighboring county.  --Dennisthe2 06:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Thewinchester (talk) 05:31, 10 April 2007 (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.