Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capital Boulevard (2nd nomination)


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was No Consensus. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Capital Boulevard
Basing this mostly on Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I live in Raleigh, and Capital Blvd is a heavily travelled road, but it's no different than any other heavily-travelled road in any other part of the country. Short of obviously famous roads like Broadway or Hollywood Boulevard, specific roads probably shouldn't be on Wikipedia. --PacknCanes 07:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * delete for reasons stated. Yahoo search turned up nothing but a random set of businesses with addresses on Capital Boulevard.Brandon39 08:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, heavily travelled road and important to the economic development of the city. We are supposed to be building a comprehensive encyclopedia. Kappa 10:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Then it deserves mention in the article on Raleigh, North Carolina and not a separate article. --Calton | Talk 11:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It does say its historically the most significant road in Raleigh Astrokey44 11:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * That's on par with being the most significant Chinese restaurant in Fargo, North Dakota. --Calton | Talk 11:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Historically, the most significant road in Raleigh is Hillsborough Street, bar none. Wake Forest Road would be second.  Not that anyone cares about this, but I'm just making the point that simply because an article states something does not automatically make it true.  This would be good on a personal webpage, but it's not encyclopedia-worthy.  And besides, if we start putting "significant" roads on Wikipedia, who decides significance?  It's a slippery slope. --PacknCanes 12:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Whether or not it's a good thing, the precedent is there: Category:Streets of London - 154 articles and counting. Loganberry (Talk) 13:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with that. Some of those ought to go, others ought to stay. Pilatus 15:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but it was mostly a reply to PacknCanes: we already have articles about "significant" roads on Wikipedia. 86.132.141.253 16:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: the above comment is mine; I didn't realise I'd been logged out. Loganberry (Talk) 17:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I can completely understand where you're coming from, and I'm not threatening to leave Wikipedia forever or anything like that (sorry if that disappoints anyone :)) if this article isn't deleted. But, at the end of the day, how many roads in American cities (or cities anywhere, for that matter) have no claim to fame other than bad traffic, lots of traffic lights, and lots of McDonalds along the side of the road?  That's all Capital Blvd is, folks.  I travel it just about every day.  It's no more "significant" than any other road with similar characteristics anywhere else in the world.  --PacknCanes 06:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with PacknCanes and Pilatus. Category:Streets of London is 99% a reference to articles which should be deleted as being non-notable. There are streets in London of a notable nature, but WikiPedia is not an atlas. Justin Bacon 07:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete roadcruft, not to mention all the other Capital Boulevards (and no, I emphatically do not support a move to a more granular title). --Calton | Talk 11:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete roadcruft Ryan Norton T 12:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, significant streets, historically/culturally important streets and streets with rapid transit (subway/rail) stops should be covered. (see Articles for deletion/Warden Avenue for an example in Toronto) Andrew pmk | Talk 17:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep its a significant street in the community as noted. I think sometimes when it comes to these types of regional listings that there is a knee jerk reaction to pull articles that local value by those who aren't interested in that local.  Does everything on Wikipedia have to übber notable to get a listing? I think not. Stu 17:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Road articles are not helping Wikipedia be more relevant to local issues. Quite the opposite, road articles have illustrated how overwhelming local topics can be (by the huge numbers of unexpanded, substandard road article that exist). Pragmatically, if you want articles on local topics I believe the best route is to fork an article off a community's article describing the topic, in this case something like 'Road network in Raleigh, NC' or what-have-you. Having a 100 articles on a 100 different roads in Raliegh only serves to fragment an interesting discussion and repeat information 99 times. --maclean25 01:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd like to see a source for the historical importance. Lacking that I'm leaning delete.  Vegaswikian 07:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Roads are not notable because you cannot distinguish one from the other; they are all the same. However, some are significant (ie. culturally, historically) but this article does not explain well why it is significant. Take it to the Raleigh, North Carolina article or delete. --maclean25 01:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, anything below the highway level is not-notable enough. Stuff like this can go in the city's article. -- Kjkolb 04:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hell, even most highways are non-notable. Otherwise I agree with Kjkolb. / Peter Isotalo 04:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or weak merge with Raleigh, North Carolina. If there is, in fact, anything about this road which is notable its proper place is in he Raleigh article. Or, alternatively, a general article on Historic Roads of Raleigh, North Carolina (or somesuch) might be appropriate. Justin Bacon 07:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to believe the Raleigh resident over the people who don't live there. (S)merge with Raleigh, North Carolina. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 11:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's verifiable and wiki isn't paper. It doesn't come under any point at What Wikipedia is not. ··gracefool |&#9786; 18:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Did you miss the Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information entry?  Still leaning delete.  Vegaswikian 21:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all non-notable roads. Article title is poor anyway, since it is unlikely that Raleigh has the world's only Capital Blvd. Quale 07:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and disambiguate major roads. Fuck "notability". --SPUI (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: But isn't notability at the root of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information? And besides, I've seen non-notable as a valid reason for a deletion before.  At some point, notability is required for an entry to be encyclopedic. --PacknCanes 04:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep until someone who doesn't like it as a separate article merges it into its locality, which I would encourage.  Un  focused  04:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I wouldn't have a problem doing that, but wouldn't it rather defeat the point if this article were merged into the Raleigh article but wasn't deleted? Just a thought.  --PacknCanes 04:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment No, because whoever performs the merge is expected to change the content at this article title to a redirect pointing at the merge target.  Un  focused  09:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Oh, I see; yeah, that makes sense. I just didn't read your original comment correctly...sorry, these things happen late at night. --PacknCanes 12:10, 2 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.