Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern Avenue (Toronto)


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Eastern Avenue (Toronto)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Redirect to List of roads in Toronto. Not an important or notable road. Eastern is a widened side street. It's only notable claim is that the Hell's Angels had a chapter on the street that was raided (but that belongs in the Hell's Angels article). It's also not one of "Toronto's oldest streets", as it wasn't constructed until at least 100 years after Toronto was born.  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  15:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect/merge per nom, excising the falsehoods and trivia.  Imzadi 1979  →   15:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Um. Are you saying that article is false? Because the article says that's about three miles long, which doesn't sound like a side street. It doesn't look like a side street street in the pictures. It has hella bluelinked entities on it. It's an important artery in an important district. Now, if all or most of this is not true, then fine. If it's actually a 30-meter long alley behind a defunct bakery or whatever, OK, let's delete it. Otherwise, keep. Herostratus (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you saying every piece of pavement that isn't a 30m alleyway deserves a seperate article, even if only a few sentences can actually be written about it? This fails the WP:Pokemon test. Being four lanes wide doesn't make it notable, it makes it a widened city street. Being X kilometres long doesn't add anything to notability either. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  18:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sort of. We want to expand our coverage of streets, not contract it, I would think. Anyway, there are five entities that are directly on this street that are notable enough to be bluelinked - Inglenook Community High School, West Don Lands, Old Eastern Avenue Bridge, Broadview Lofts, Greenwood Raceway. That alone is sufficient to keep the article, in my opinion. Herostratus (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. I wish to expand Ontario quite a bit. I don't believe expansion necessarily equates to new independent articles, but rather new or better referenced content, and the compilation of disjointed information into organized knowledge. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  19:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect - Per nom.  Dough 48  72  21:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've done a fair number of renovations and it should stand on its own now. - SimonP (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep AfD is not the place for a request to rediect, use the merge templates. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keepnow that updated. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. According to WP:STREET, and given the Toronto population (city limits) of about 4,750,000, there should be articles on 95 Toronto streets. Of course WP:STREET is just an essay. Whether Eastern Avenue is one of the 95 most notable Toronto streets I can't say, but it might be. Herostratus (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Its actually less than half of that. The road articles for Hamilton, Ontario are good examples of non-shitty city street articles. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  02:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, I was looking at the population of the whole urban area. The city limits is 2,500,000. Thus if the advice of WP:STREET is taken, that would live Toronto with 50 street articles. It's a lot less likely that Eastern Avenue is one of the top 50 streets than one of the top 95. So this is an important point. However, it may be one of the top 50 and anyway WP:STREET is just advice. So I would still say keep the article.


 * Hmmm, Hamilton. Hamilton has about 500,000 peeps, so per WP:STREET it would get 10 street articles. But Category:Roads in Hamilton, Ontario has 70 articles. So some of the articles must be about fairly minor streets. The first three I picked at random - King Street (Hamilton, Ontario), John Street (Hamilton, Ontario), Aberdeen Avenue - these are lengthy detailed articles. I don't see right off a huge difference between these and this article (Eastern Avenue), so I'm not sure of your point here. Herostratus (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The quality is what I'm pointing out, not the notability. I don't question notability on articles like that. I do on poorly written articles, which most of the streets in Toronto are. I'm glad at the very least that this has brought forth some positive contributions to them. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  05:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Minor comment (as author of WP:STREET) - the essay refers to streets notable simply by local prominence, and makes it clear *(hopefully) that it doesn't refer to streets which have inherent notability for other reasons. As such, it's theoretically possible for Hamilton to have 10 prominent streets and several others notable for other reasons. I'd be surprised if it has 60, but it's possible. Basically though, a simple count of the category won't tell you very much as far as the essay is concerned. Grutness...wha?  20:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, per SimonP. FieldMarine (talk) 04:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Strange one. Despite the road having over 700 Google News results, the vast majority appear to discuss things located on the street (The Hell's Angels site, a temporary detention centre used during a G20 meeting, a power plant and a propsed Wal-mart were among the most covered). Very little coverage actually about the road itself. Book sources were marginally better but still not quite sufficient, so redirect for now. Future recreation with better sources would be fine with me. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:02, 8 February 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.