Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Road (New Jersey)


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Clinton Road (New Jersey)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Various rumors about a road in NJ, entirely sourced to "Weird NJ" and a booklet self-published on "CreateSpace." Intending to improve this rather poor article, I discovered the subject doesn't even satisfy notability requirements. No reliable sources found that either verify original research or establish WP:N. ("Weird NJ"'s editorial policy consists of publishing rumors, stories and claims sent to them via email.) LuckyLouie (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Weak Keep This is vaugely notable, Wierd NJ is .. a weak source, and it isn't Hoax worthy. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Places that have attracted a great deal of folklore about them are notable. The verifiable facts here are not those alleged by the folklore; they are the existence of such rumors when they have been reported in a reliable source. In addition to the Weird NJ book (which was all I had years ago when I started this article) Weird NJ devoted an entire issue to Clinton Road at one point, going into the historical basis of the folklore as well as aggregating all the stuff people sent them. A simple search on Google Books uncovers this on the exact same subject. This and this and this about the body that Richard Kuklinski had left. I think there's other sources. You know, you could have looked at the history and tried to see if anyone takes an interest in the article, then talked to them, before nominating it for deletion with some snarky comment about how it's "rather poor", thus subjecting me to completely unwarranted public humiliation. (OK, I admit I have been too busy with other content to really put all this stuff up). When I saw you put the tags on I honestly thought that you were the sort of responsible editor who wasn't going to just throw up his hands and nominate something for deletion for the sake of nailing another trophy to the wall. But I'm not perfect, I suppose ... (And we wonder why new editors don't stick with Wikipedia!). Daniel Case (talk)
 * The Linda Zimmermann book ("true stories of haunted places" etc.) is not a reliable source for folklore or for fact, and the road's connection to Richard Kuklinski does not warrant a separate article about the road. Also, WP:NPA please. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * On what do you base your judgement of the Zimmerman book? Do you have a reliable source that says it's not a reliable source? (note tag) And I am quite taken aback that you would attempt to dismiss my criticism of how you have handled this as a personal attack. To do so implies that it was without foundation, when I clearly stated my reasons for that criticism, which was a criticism of how you handled this, not you personally. Daniel Case (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum. The website for West Milford Municipal Court mentions the "the 'haunted' Clinton Road." I'm certainly not suggesting this is a source, but argues for some further acknowledgement that Clinton Road is notable for this reputation ... almost judicial notice, in fact. Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And the township has something about Clinton Road on its own website. Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also find it difficult to consider Zimmermann overly credulous when she begins her chapter, "I generally only deal with cases that have reliable eyewitnesses and as many verifiable facts as possible.". Like us, she reports the legends but doesn't suggest that they're true just because she's heard them. Oh, and here's the newspaper article she alluded to. In a paper published outside of New Jersey, yet. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Further addendum: This hiking guidebook has a full-page sidebar about Clinton Road on p. 146. However, for entirely obvious reasons, I will refrain from arguing it's a further source (although if someone else feels it meets the criteria, I'll be flattered :-). Daniel Case (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. In addition Daniel Case's book, Clinton Road is mentioned for its hiking excellence in a number of other books; the New Jersey Audubon Society website has a detailed page describing it as a prime birdwatching site. A briefer mention in the NYT is here.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Weird NJ is a reliable (and well-known) source for Jersey legends.  The legends don't have to be true to be notable.  Here's a newspaper article (reprinted in the Seattle Times!) that reports the Weird NJ stories and adds some.  Also, and unrelated to the legendary material, there are news stories (including The New York Times) about the "nation's longest traffic light" at the intersection of Clinton Road and Route 23.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Weird NJ does not appear to be a reliable source (described by Publishers Weekly as "a kooky compilation"). And the article's "exceptional claims require high-quality sources", per WP:REDFLAG. Beyond said exceptional-but-poorly-substantiated claims, this road does not appear to have much claim to notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Since when is saying "lots of people believe X" an exceptional claim? You are confusing claims of belief in the existence of the paranormal with claims of factuality of those claims. If the article was claiming that there really are evil spirits/whatever out there in the woods, then yes you'd be right. But it isn't, and you're not. So find a better argument. Daniel Case (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Strange creatures, and ghosts from hellhounds to monkeys and unidentifiable hybrids, have been caught in the glare of headlights crossing the road at night." This is NOT a claim that "lots of people believe X" -- it is a claim that hellhounds have been seen. The claim that hellhounds (supernatural creatures) have been seen is an EXCEPTIONAL CLAIM! HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then we should edit the article to reflect that people are claiming to have seen these things. Don't delete when editing would do the trick. Daniel Case (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There. Was that so difficult? Please feel free to bring to my attention any other deletion-worthy wording in the article. Daniel Case (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's still essentially tabloid journalism -- not in the least bit encyclopaedic content. What's next? People who were abducted by aliens and had Elvis' love child? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I allow that the article, despite my keeping out some of the more marginal claims over the years, is a bit too loose and indiscriminate. I will be tightening it up some. But even though we may wish something weren't notable, or weren't notable for the reasons it is notable, it is still notable. I acquiesced in the deletion of The Devil's Tree because I could not credibly argue it had established notability even statewide. This is not the case here, where all the exposure Weird NJ gave it expanded its legend to not just North Jersey but most of the tri-state area. I mean, if the local police had to put something on the town's webpage FAQ about it ... doesn't that suggest a greater than local notability? Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I just want to note that PW calling the book "a kooky compilation" does not make it an unreliable source; all it means is that the topics covered by the book are kooky. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Having the nation's longest traffic light wait makes it an easy keep. The road's spooky reputation is also widespread enough to be valid too. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - WeirdNJ (the book, not the site) is a reliable source for some local folklore within a pre-existing article, but it does not rise to the level of establishing enough notability to give any topic it covers its own Wikipedia article. Arguments for something being a notable legend in a tri-state area is not the same as notable for this site. This is an encyclopedia, remember, not just a random collection of local trivia and rumors. DreamGuy (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Point. However, I think that when the Travel Channel devotes a segment to it, we can argue it's gone beyond metropolitan area notability. Daniel Case (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - I'm torn as to the notability of this article after reviewing WP:N. However, I want to register strong opposition to deletion, as there is content in this article that should not be lost from the encyclopedia, per WP:FAILN. If the consensus is not to Keep, this material should be preserved, perhaps at Weird NJ with a redirect. --Tkynerd (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, in that event, West Milford, New Jersey, would be the better merge. Daniel Case (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Plenty of reliable sources to meet GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 02:59, 10 April 2011
 * Keep First of all, I agree with the assertion that Weird NJ is a reliable source. Second, as established above, this road has been discussed, for various reasons, in several books. And third, the Travel Channel segment is, in my opinion, yet another good indication that this passes WP:N. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2011 (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.