Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalton Road


 * 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 Merge to Heaven on Earth I'm also doing the same to Portland Walk Shopping Centre--Robdurbar 18:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Dalton Road

 * — (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a directory. Similar sized towns don't have lists for each of their shopping streets. MrBeast 00:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm also a little concerned about the top picture - Image:Daltonroad1912.jpg. It's licensed as GFDL by the author, but is apparently taken in 1912 (meaning they would have to be at least 96). Anyone know what to do about this? MrBeast 01:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe the editor is the owner of the photo, inherited from a relative. From 1912, it's likely public-domain anyway. --Oakshade 01:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not. This wasn't taken in the US, so the pre-1923 clause is irrelevant. If the copyright statute in the UK (and I don't know what it is) is 50 or 70 years after the death of the author, it's possible it could still be copyright. If the author was 18 when the picture was taken, he or she could easily have died in the 1960s or 1970s. -- Charlene  02:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * UK law is 70 years after the death of the artist. . Tevildo 03:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So if the author died less than 24 years after that was taken, it's still under copyright. -- Charlene 11:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless the photographer is "unknown", in which case the copyright expired on January 1st, 1983. I don't pretend to know what the legal definition of "unknown" is in this context - let's just say that there's a more-than-trivial chance that the picture is still in copyright. Tevildo 12:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Barrow-in-Furness. Eliminate the directory-ness and just say something like "this street has been the area's commercial centre for 100+ years." --Wafulz 03:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Barrow-in-Furness already has a mention of this road, and Multimap reveals at least 14 other Dalton Roads in the UK . I'm not sure a redirect would be helpful. MrBeast 02:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per Wafulz. The time-elapse photos are awful nice, but the list is striking in its uselessness.  Exactly what WP:NOT is for.  --Jackhorkheimer 07:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per Wafulz. Suggest renaming redirect to indicate a more specific location as many towns in the world have a Dalton Road. --Shirahadasha 08:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete although merge and redirect is acceptable to me. But at least get rid of the long list of shops which is either utterly pointless (major UK chains will all have a shop in a town the size of Barrow) or advertising (for local businesses). Sam Blacketer 23:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete entirely per nom. WMMartin 19:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge the little bit of salvageable content. That, of course, doesn't include the Yellow Pages for Dalton Road. Pascal.Tesson 01:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge+Redirect. Roads are almost always non-notable, this is not an exception. It can certainly be mentioned in the main article if the content's there.-- Wizardman 05:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Barrow-in-Furness. It's highly probable that other cities have their own Dalton Road, which may or may not be more notable than the subject. A redirect here may be confusing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caknuck (talk • contribs) 08:28, 13 January 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.