Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago Boulevard System


 * 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 no consensus. Opinion is pretty much split down the middle on this. The deletion arguments sound pretty strong to me, especially given the dearth of good sources, and normally I would be willing to ignore the headcount and call this a delete, based on the strength of the arguments. But, we have a statement from doncram that he believes the article can be improved, and he's willing to put in the effort to do so. My suggestion would be to give him time to work on this before bringing this back to AfD again.

Had there been any sort of consensus to move this to draft, I almost certainly would have gone with that. But, I don't think it's my place to invent that option when none of the participants suggested it. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Chicago Boulevard System

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Search for sources: I searched for the "Chicago Boulevard System", but only ended up with two potential sources: "Villaire (2011): Best Bike Rides Chicago", and "Thompson-Stahr (2001): The Burling Books: Ancestors and Descendants of Edward and Grace Burling, Quakers (1600-2000)". I am not satisfied with either one, and especially the latter is more of an memorial about the 1800's. Actually, the more I have dug into the topic, the less convinced I am that such a term as the "Chicago Boulevard System" would even exist established. Indeed, the terminology is quite diverse, and, many of the sources discuss like a) "Chicago Park Boulevard System Historic District", b) "Logan Square Boulevards Historic District", or c) "Chicago's historic Park Boulevard System", all of which have slightly different meaning.


 * Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposer's comments: Chicago is a city that consists of a lot of parks, boulevards, park districts, and boulevard districts. Some of them remain well-documented (such as the "Logan Square Boulevards Historic District" mentioned above), but I am not entirely convinced if this very term, the "Chicago Boulevard System" should merit its own article. Moreover, we already have the article "Chicago Park District", a concept way more established than the "Chicago Boulevard System".

The article was created in 8 March 2016, which means that it is quite a new one. (For comparison, the Chicago Park District article has been created in 4 November 2005, and is far more developed and better sourced) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge into Roads and expressways in Chicago. I would argue that the Chicago Boulevards are notable as part of the city of Chicago, although I personally don't know much about their history aside from (I believe) being part of the Burnham Plan and the fact that the streetcar companies were prohibited from operating on them (overhead wires) and that the "L" companies were required to have decorative elements wherever their lines passed over one. That being said, the information in the article is scant and clearly isn't enough to support a standalone article at this time. I would argue that the proper article for this is not the Chicago Parks District, but rather Roads and expressways in Chicago as the boulevards are Chicago roads. They do connect major parks in the district, however their primary function is that of transporting people and vehicles. The various historic districts are so named because of their location in relation to the boulevards. At present this would make an excellent section as part of the aforementioned article which could and would include a list of the boulevards and their early history. That, I think, shouldn't be to difficult to find sources for. Lost on Belmont 3200N1000W (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support the merge proposal as a second alternative Lost on Belmont, thanks for your suggestion! You are right, Roads and expressways in Chicago seems much better article to merge with. I am not an expert with the mergers, but WP:MERGE seems to be consistent with this: "Merge is one of the outcome options that can be considered at a deletion discussion."


 * Once we have good-enough sources, though, I think a standalone article could come into question as well. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – Jayaguru-Shishya, here is the article as of a few weeks ago, before you deleted most of the content and all of the references. The subject of this article obviously meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines.  And the Chicago Park District is not at all the same thing as the Chicago boulevard system, those are two different topics that should continue to have two different articles.  I would strongly encourage other editors to refer to the long, and mostly irrational, discussion at Talk:Chicago, where you attempted to justify the removal of a paragraph about the boulevard system.  Although on the plus side, that paragraph is better now than it was before.  (It's in this section of the Chicago article, and it has even more references about the subject.)  So, yeah.  I'm not sure what the deal is with you and the Chicago Boulevard System, but it's still not adding up for me.  (Pinging User:Alanscottwalker who was part of the previous discussion.) — Mudwater (Talk) 18:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Mudwater, in order to merit a standalone article, we would need reliable secondary sources to establish the article's notability. I am not saying this couldn't be the case in the future, but at the moment a merger, as suggested by Lost on Belmont, would be a more meaningful solution.
 * There are many different concepts around Chicago and its parks, just like the one you mentioned (Chicago Park District). I also mentioned a few in my proposal, and many of them even have their own Wikipedia articles. However, if the sources refer to these very names you and I have brought up, but make no mention of the "Chicago Boulevard System", I can hardly see how these sources could be used to support a standalone article. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, although probably rename to "Chicago Park Boulevard System". The City of Chicago nomination of "Chicago Park Boulevard System" included in the earlier version of article that Mudwater refers us to, is very convincing.  It sounds like a visionary design for the city, covering crucial elements of boulevards (some being parkways?) and parks, comparable to the Boston's influential green necklace plan (which was for parks and parkways IIRC... yes, see Emerald Necklace.  Putting it in just an article on "Roads and expressways" seems wrong. -- do  ncr  am  01:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Whether or not the article is kept or is merged and becomes a section of another article, the title should absolutely contain the word "Park" as in Chicago Park Boulevard(s). Chicago has other signed boulevards (such as Pratt Blvd. and Ridge Blvd.) that are clearly not within the scope of the topic in question. Lost on Belmont 3200N1000W (talk) 03:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Thanks doncram. The proposal to rename the article to "Chicago Park Boulevard System" is rather interesting too, and I hadn't really thought about that. But it means that the article should be backed up by new sources that support the very concept. The source about the nomination is actually about the "Chicago Park Boulevard System Historic District" which, I assume, would be a sub-district. We also have "new park and boulevard systems", as expressed by Bleidsten, B. J. (2016) Chicago's Park & Boulevard Systems. Actually, the previous source discusses "boulevard systems" (plural), suggesting that there are multiple systems instead of just one single. Therefore, I still doubt the justification for the article. We should first have the sources confirming that a particular concept is established, and then create an article based on those sources; not the other way.


 * Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The first part of the City of Chicago document is mostly about the district to be created, which is surely going to be separately notable assuming it happens. But from page 64 on it is about the history of the Chicago Park and Boulevard system: the idea, the 1869 state legislation, the 1871 great fire, actual development of the city, how this system compares to other Frederick Law Olmstead and Calvert Vaux-designed systems for Buffalo, Boston, Brooklyn, and other systems in Minneapolis, Cleveland etc. It has an extensive bibliography. There is tons about this topic available. It is about time Wikipedia starts covering it properly, this is the kind of thing Wikipedia can do well. It is nearly proper to snow close this as obvious, though the discussion has been useful perhaps in bringing more attention here. If I can I will soon contribute in expanding the article. -- do ncr  am  21:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi doncram. What source might be that? I am sorry, but I couldn't locate any source having 64 pages in this discussion. Also, we should not make any WP:OR-like conclusions that "boulevard systems" (plural, since there are plenty of these boulevard systems) can be assimilated with the wiki-user created Chicago Boulevard System / Chicago Park Boulevard System, especially if there aren't any sources to support the established existence of such terms. Why to push an article that is supported by no source? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is the 248 page (in two parts) nomination document, in pdf, that is given in the City of Chicago nomination's webpage that you and I have both linked to, above. Please read it, esp from page 64 on, before commenting further in this AFD! -- do ncr  am  23:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * None of the sources that have been brought up in this discussion have that many pages. So far, we have no source to support the existence of such a term. Indeed, Chicago is a city that consists of a lot of parks, boulevards, park districts, and boulevard districts. If we try to launch a new term that is not supported by the sources, that's WP:OR. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and this should now be "snow" closed (because now, even the OP is arguing "merge", not "delete"). No one can dispute that the boulevards, their history and so-on are a thing written about in multiple sources. There is no benefit to wiping out the history of this article by deletion.  A deletion discussion is not the place to have a WP:Move or a WP:Merge discussion. Indeed, I'm almost certain that if any editor just moved the thing right now - without discussion - to some-other title as reasonable, as the present one, no one would blink an eye (but just to be safe post the proposal on the talk page, first). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)  Note: After my comment was posted the OP then altered their second comment to say merger was a good "alternative" (when they did not mention alternative before), but since that is the case, that's one reason why a snow close against deletion is a good idea.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Not quite. I can hardly see how we could be facing WP:SNOW (which is an essay by the way, not a policy or a guideline) when one user states that "...the information in the article is scant and clearly isn't enough to support a standalone article at this time.", and the OP is primarily in favor of deletion. According to the WP:MERGE, as quoted above, merge "...is one of the outcome options that can be considered at..." AfD. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment the quoted statement was made about the article as it existed at the time of nomination which was a single paragraph consisting of only three sentences. As has been pointed out, this situation exists because you deleted a fair bit of the existing information. My stance remains against deletion be it by merge or keep. An additional source has already been provided by and there are undoubtedly others. If I may be frank, it seems like this deletion request is solely about because you don't like the references. You deleted content apparently because you didn't like the references, leaving the article bare, then nominated it for deletion because it didn't have enough references. If the city has found it eligible and nominated it for NRHP, wouldn't that suggest notability to you? The proper thing seems to be to look harder for more references if the existing ones don't meet standards. Lost on Belmont 3200N1000W  (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Lost on Belmont, the references were removed for a reason since they failed to verify the material. Also one primary source was removed (an office register paper). However, in the Edit Summaries it's been explained all. So it's not a question whether I like the references or not, but because the references did not verify the material.
 * In my opinion, the subject would not merit its own article, and unless deleted, I'd consider a merge as you suggested a better idea. User doncram also suggested a rename, but it would require us to - taking into account the variety of the names (and the fact that many of these already have their own Wikipedia articles) - find reliable secondary sources to justify the topic. All the different - but related - terms might get easily confused. For example, the former version of the article was supported by the City of Chicago: Logan Square Boulevards District, something that already has its own Wikipedia article (Logan Square Boulevards Historic District), but the common thread between the two is still missing.


 * Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * IMO the references should not have been deleted from the article. One was the webpage providing the 248 page City of Chicago PDF document that explains in crystal-clear terms the relationship of the Logan Square Boulevards district (its boulevards are included in the larger system). -- do ncr  am  23:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And what source that might be? None of the sources in the article even had 248 pages. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect Given the current state of the article, until there is some Historic District to carve out, I would just merge the content. If there is a consensus that overhauls the content of the article, ping me and I will reconsider my opinion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , your merge suggestion is not specific. Unfortunately, the version you probably looked at was stripped down.  I restored the article and edited it slightly for clarification, to this current version.  It's an article about the Chicago Park Boulevards system.  There is tons about it in the complete, long, 2016 City of Chicago nomination form that is available from a City of Chicago webpage.  (It would be great if you were interested in using that material to develop the article and to put in proper reference to the full nomination.  I am interested in developing the article too, but I am hesitating to do much as I'd prefer for a pending arbitration clarification to be completed beforehand.  It's arguably okay already for me to use an NRHP nomination document to develop an article about a non-NRHP topic, although maybe not everyone would agree.)  Given this clarification, perhaps your view would be that until the proposed historic district is created, anything about the proposed historic district could be included (merged) within this article (which I think is reasonable).  The overall topic--the system-- is hugely notable, IMO.  Could you perhaps please clarify?  I trust that you do not intend for the Chicago Park Boulevards topic to be deemed not notable, given the nomination material (see p. 64 on, especially) and merely merged into an article about current highways.  Thank you for your attention. -- do  ncr  am  20:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , this might be getting out of topic, but there is a discussion at the article Talk Page at the moment where all the problems have been explained (Talk:Chicago Boulevard System). Anyway, not just the removed sources failed to verify the material, but I think they actually demonstrate the problem pretty well. As said before, there are many concepts around the topic, such as a) "Chicago Park Boulevard System Historic District", b) "Logan Square Boulevards Historic District", or c) "Chicago's historic Park Boulevard System", all of which have slightly different meaning.
 * For example, the "Bluestone, D. M. 1985. National Register of Historic Places Inventory - Nomination Form: Logan Square Boulevards Historic District" source was about the Logan Square Boulevards Historic District - a concept that already has its own Wikipedia article - and made no references to the "Chicago Boulevard System"
 * Also the "City of Chicago. Logan Square Boulevards District" source fell for the same shortcomings: it was about the the Logan Square Boulevards Historic District and didn't even mention the "Chicago Boulevard System".
 * Those two sources actually comprehended half of the article's sources (two out of four). We should not try to launch a new term that is not supported by the sources; that'd beWP:OR. Cheers!

Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Those sources do talk at length about the boulevard system, even using the words "boulevard" and "system." Sure, they also talk about Logan Square - in the context of the larger system -- but the first discusses the larger system in its own entire section.  You cannot get a merge here where no one agrees on where to merge (which is not at all surprising since a proper merge discussion was not even proposed before bringing this here and the boulevards discussed are literally the cross between streets and parks) and your objections only really seem to be to the title of the article, which would be a move, as everyone agrees and as the links at the top of this page show, there are multiple sources on the boulevards, many using the word "system". (For example, if you want to move to "Chicago boulevard system" from ""Chicago Boulevard System"  you might be able to get a consensus for that, but not here).Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:02, 26 April 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.