Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cross Bay Boulevard


 * 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 - anything else would be a blatant violation of consensus. Non admin closure.  N F 24 (radio me!Editor review) 00:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Cross Bay Boulevard

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No assertion of notability. Fails the USRD notability guideline for city streets. Has no footnotes. Skipped PROD because someone would have removed it like always. —Scott5114↗ 13:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A major arterial roadway in the largest borough of the largest city in the United States. The use of an arbitrary notability guideline manufactured by the nominator a few weeks ago without any discussion beyond the handful of those aware of the discussion violates any meaningful definition of "consensus". I have actively participated in WP:USRD and had no idea the page existed or would be used as an excuse for deletion of articles. Ample sources exists regarding this roadway, which should have been added by the nominator if deletion policy had been observed. Alansohn 14:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The guideline and its discussion page are linked from the WT:USRD talk page, and also the big green box that appears on the majority of the project's pages. If you overlooked it, I'm sorry, but we did the best we could. That said, even if that guideline didn't exist, it's still not notable at all and doesn't assert it. —Scott5114↗ 14:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "No idea the page existed"? It's been posted everywhere - the project template, the header of the USRD talk page, the USRD navbox, the newsletter... -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have long been disappointed with the manner in which many of the WP:USRD decisions have been made and imposed, and this one fits the classic mold. The fact that there would be a general discussion regarding road notability was made in Newsletter 14, which was issued on September 30th, and included no mention of arterial notability as being within the purview of the discussion. On October 9th, the WP:USRD/NT subpage was updated to include a statement regarding non-highway notability based on the discussion of a small handful of individuals. No statement was offered to the Wikipedia population as a whole or to other WP:USRD participants to accept or reject this proposal; the casual discussion of five people is supposed to set policy. Issue 15, dated October 20th makes no mention whatsoever of this brand new policy, let alone ask for comments or discussion. Now it is being used as the sole justification to delete an article. The problem is that there is a clear majority here of interested parties who believe that this and other articles are notable, despite the fact that they do not meet the rather arbitrary standards promulgated (if I could only hum a few bars of "Give My Regards to Cross Bay Boulevard..."). This should be a resoundingly clear message that there is something deeply and fundamentally wrong with the process of creating rules and regulations that others are supposed to abide by, without making any meaningful effort to obtain consensus on these supposed policies (and the 9/20 announcement was an invitation, not an effort to obtain consensus). The process is broke and it must be fixed. By the way, you haven't participated yet: should this article be deleted based solely on WP:USRD/NT? Alansohn 03:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's great to skip steps in the name of expediency, but your obligation as a nominator, as required by deletion policy is to seek means to edit and improve articles before pushing them for deletion. It took me minutes to find and add sources demonstrating notability. In addition to the ample reliable and verifiable sources, the article makes a specific claim of notability in its role in the first road connection to the Rockaways across Jamaica Bay and as part of what was the world's longest vehicular trestle, all of which asserts and establishes Notability. Alansohn 15:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've got 129 other articles on my plate right now...I lack the time to improve every article. —Scott5114↗ 15:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are 5400 other articles that are more important than this one that need to be improved. We have articles on 700-mile long cross-state highways that are in horrible shape, and time spent on improving some article on some street is (in my view) better spent on a stubby two-digit Interstate Highway article. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing in the article or the references assert why the street itself is notable. Cogswobble talk 14:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The article and its sources do now. Alansohn 15:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A notable road and the link provided is not even a guideline, it is a project subpage. --Holderca1talk 16:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep as a notable boulevard-causeway hybrid. The turnpike history alone makes it notable. It's part of the arterial system for eventual takeover by the state. Every other road on that map (other than Woodhaven Boulevard) is a parkway or numbered route. If you need more references, take a look at . --NE2 16:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Satisfies general notability criteria and is also designated as a principal through route as part of the NYC Arterial System. --Polaron | Talk 16:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - "is the main north-south road in Howard Beach is an assertion of notability. The main artery in Queens and part of the NYC Arterial System.  Easily passed our roads criteria. --Oakshade 16:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Major keep - As a former NYC-ite, and the one working on all these street articles, I have to ask to keep these, as I will get to them soon as I am done with the Bronx. Cross Bay Boulevard and Woodhaven Boulevard are very major streets in the Queens.Mitch32contribs 20:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This article may need a little facelift, but this certainly passes notability criteria.  O2  (息 • 吹) 03:14, 08 November 2007 (GMT)
 * Keep yeah, others have said all the obvious reasons. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  04:16, 8 November 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.