Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of North High Street, Columbus, Ohio, between State Route 161 and Morse 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 of the debate was userfy. A good-faith effort was made to make a Wikipedia article. This article runs counter to WP:NOR, so cannot remain in article space. But I don't think anyone will have a problem with userfication (except possibly for the original author of the article). Ξxtreme Unction |yakkity yak 13:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

History of North High Street, Columbus, Ohio, between State Route 161 and Morse Road
Article is not encyclopedic. Frenchgeek 21:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. While I appreciate the effort that user George has put in, this is too granular for an encyclopedia. Any history should go in the Columbus article or if it is very full, there should be a history of Columbus, Ohio. Capitalistroadster 22:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems that people pounce on an article with a narrow title. It is easy to identify such an article, and kudos to the first person to nominate it for destruction. This must be a sport on Wikipedia. Anyway, what about the 6000 uncited words on Winston Churchill? There must be twenty books in my local library that cover Churchill better than that page. What I was trying to put up was new information, not available anywhere else. I don't think you can judge the usefulness of this information now - maybe after a few years or decades. Think of the details historians would love to have about Lincoln's life, but they weren't recorded because they were deemed to be trivial at the time. People here are too quick to judge. I would strongly argue that an article should get at least a week or better 3 months before it becomes possible to target it for deletion. How can ideas get off the ground otherwise? george 00:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep This article contains information about very local history. You may not be interested in the postwar Suburban development in the midwest, but others may be. This article gives the development history of a stretch of North High Street in Columbus, Ohio over the past 50 years. I am trying to create a web of interlocking pages covering Worthington, Ohio and north Columbus, Ohio. A lot of work went into researching each property and photographing it. Why should I put a lot of effort into creating Wikipedia pages if they are going to be deleted? Some guy from Maine doesn't think north Columbus, Ohio history is interesting, so he throws a rock at my work. I just don't see the point of investing any further effort in Wikipedia if its going to be erased as quickly as it is installed. This REALLY pisses me off. george 22:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * First of all, I believe you answered your own question as to the inappropriateness of the article by stating that it contains "very local history". Secondly, maybe this information can be merged into the article about Columbus, Ohio or Worthington, Ohio, or even an article entitled Postwar suburban development in the Midwest. I do not believe that one section of a street merits its own entry. Frenchgeek 22:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I really appreciate you taking the time and effort to torpedo my work. Maybe, after my article is deleted I can console myself by reading the crucially important Miss USA article. george 22:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Why should very local information be deleted from Wikipidia? Given the low cost of digital storage, why can't the detail continue down to street level history? Digital storage is cheap! Why limit Wikipidia to a broad brush overview? How do you know what someone will be interested in ten years from now? george 22:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Before starting a wikipedia article, the most crucial question to ask yourself is: "Can this article one day be a featured article?" If the answer to that question is no, then the next question should be: "where can I place this information for it to be easily found and appreciated?" If I give the impression that I'm trying to torpedo your work, I'm sorry. I just think that there is a better place for this information to be. Frenchgeek 23:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Then how will you ever build a base of knowledge? I can't believe that you would eliminate carefully researched information from what is essentially a limitless storage medium. You know what the historians value most when looking at the past? Its the detailed, specific, mundane day-to-day details of life. If that information is blocked from Wikipidia today because its "too granular", then how will it be available to Sociologists in 2050? I guess they will have to content themselves with reading about Miss USA to glean what our society was like. Another point - this page wasn't even up ONE DAY before you decided to delete it. Why don't you let other people read it before you shoot it down? If information is a fractal, then the 'Politically Correct' Wikipedians would eliminate all the whorls and spikes leaving a dull, bland outline. Make room for the details of the real world. george 23:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You know what, this is turning into a REALLY BAD EXPERIENCE. I'm wasting all this time defending my article when I could be working on it instead. You guys can go ahead and delete this - I give up. Also, I'm through with Wikipidia - its so much easier to destroy other people's work than add new, researched information! I think added information should be treasured, not wiped out without much thought about the broader implications. THE PAGE WASN'T EVEN UP ONE DAY before someone casually decided it needs to go. Words cannot express how FURIOUS I am about this crap. george 23:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Poor guy, I feel sorry for him, I really do. He obviously put some work and some research into this and feels like he's under attack.  Unfortunately, this just isn't something suitable for Wikipedia.  You should probably go make a personal site and put this information on there.  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 00:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

No Vote. I agree with Cyde Weys in that this article is of interest now and will be of interest, presumably in the future. However, micro-level detail like this may well be best on the author's own website. There is simply nothing notable about this district that would merit an encyclopaedic article. Incidentally, the arguments about the low cost of digital storage being a reason to 'Keep' are specious. All digital storage costs something, and the folk paying for it have every right to set terms of reference for its use. Eddie.willers 05:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Very, very, very specific in scope, but also well-written, interesting, referenced, and verifiable. Should be moved to a shorter and more elegant title, probably by omitting the "between State Route 161 and Morse Road" part. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  01:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Then it would have to be expanded to include the whole high street. Currently it does exactly what it says on the tin - it covers that stretch of road and no further. It has the unwieldly long title, somewhat ironically, because its scope is so narrow. --Last Malthusian 09:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The first thing Wikipedia says is that this is not a paper encyclopedia. This article wasn't in anybody's way. It was still being developed. It was barely up before it got shot down. As far as being notable, that is a purely subjective argument. I don't think the Miss USA article is notable. Lets go delete that. I have to believe that killing articles is a sport - why else would somebody pounce on it after it has only been up a few hours? I think it is wrong and narrow minded to wipe this out. george 00:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not notable, and there doesn't seem to be anything significant that differentiates this stretch of road from any other American suburban strip. Perhaps merge any relevant content into Columbus, Ohio.  Blackcats 07:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It was up for only 2 hours. I was still working on it. Why isn't there a one week moratorium on wrecking other people's work? george 00:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, the scope of this article is far too narrow to be on Wikipedia. Perhaps it would be of use in a Wiki specific to Columbus, Ohio, Ohio, or even the United States? &mdash; J I P  | Talk 07:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Finding it difficult to keep the snide comments back when the newbies WP:BITE themselves. --Last Malthusian 10:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should read the article and provide specific reasons why it should be deleted. It appears from your comment that the reason you feel it should be deleted is because it was written by a Newbie. Also, if you read what you wrote carefully, perhaps you could see how other people might feel that it is a snide comment. george 00:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Fine. Although it's a good article and worth hosting elsewhere, it's of no interest to anyone who doesn't live in the area, and therefore doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. Your continual self-evidently irrelevant comparisons with Miss USA and Madonna don't show a good understanding of Wikipedia policy as to what is notable. And as for being snide, you're basically throwing a tantrum because someone won't give you free hosting. There you go. --Last Malthusian 09:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP, If the point of Wikipedia articles is only to add information that may some day be a featured article than only popular information will be entered. The point of an encyclopedia is that the information contained would be ENCYCLOPEDIC and all encompassing.  I live not far from this part of High Street and find the information intriguing and relevant to me.  Please keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.141 (talk • contribs)

Comment - is this area actually definable as a distinct neighbourhood separate from everything else around it? -- Francs2000 14:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I respect the time that the author has put into this work, but I do not think the subject is relevent enough to warrant an encyclopedia mention, as it is very narrow in scope. --jackohare 18:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This is new information, not available anywhere else. I suppose if I had written another 1500 uncited words about Madonna (entertainer) then I would be a stellar Wikipedia citizen. This article wasn't even up for 2 hours before the french guy shot it down. I think you should give an article at least a week. I know the title is long - once you put it into delete-mode you can't fix the title. Information that seems trivial now may be much more important years from now. I think that deleting articles is a sport on Wikipedia and by being trigger happy, you kill ideas that are still budding. george 00:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, User:Frenchgeek seems to be American. &mdash; J I P  | Talk 17:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Looks good. We need more like this. -- JJay 00:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: One thing that influences me is that if we decide a small stretch of one road somewhere in America is worthy of inclusion, theoretically either a) we should create similar articles to cover every road everywhere (this one demonstrates no especial notability), or b) we're basically implying that this street deserves special attention. If it's kept, someone is going to come across it (how, I have no idea, as I can't think what articles would link to it, but...) and think "Why is this on here?" It's all very well to say "Because Wikipedia is not paper" (which is, let's face it, a truism), but they aren't going to understand that. --Last Malthusian 09:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * So basically, any unique information on Wikipedia is going to get killed off and it will simply cover topics that are covered much better elsewhere. It boggles my mind that people can copy information about Madonna (entertainer) out of Cosmo magazine and that is considered important, but unique, new information is not? How do you know where this will lead? Did you read the part about Ann-Ton's restaurant? As far as I know this is the only place that had been pulled together. You say the street is not notable - well that is a purely subjective assertation. Also, you don't have to cover every street in Wikipedia - only the ones that members write articles about! Consistency is the hobgoblin of... george 14:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a weirdly obsessive hatred of Madonna, if you don't mind me saying so. Anyway, about Ann-Ton's restaurant, well, what about it? It opened, it got burgled, it closed, the owners married... this is not information that belongs in an encyclopaedia, no matter how well-written (which it is). 'Uniqueness' is not a virtue if the reason it's unique is because no-one else has any reason to be interested in it. And if it's new information, it's original research and shouldn't be here anyway. --Last Malthusian 15:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, here's an example of an article on a topic that nobody has ever heard of: Gaston Lagaffe. In fact, I would suggest that more people are familiar with North High Street in Columbus, Ohio than are familiar with Gaston Lagaffe. Clearly, Gaston Lagaffe is not notable. If there is room for this sort of article in Wikipedia, then there is room for mine. george 18:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly think so. Pretty much everyone in western Europe has heard of Gaston Lagaffe. I don't think anyone outside Columbus, Ohio have heard of North High Street, Columbus, Ohio. In fact, I would hazard a guess that more people have heard of Gaston Lagaffe than Columbus, Ohio (but not the entire state of Ohio). Unfortunately, many Americans think that if they haven't heard of something in Europe, then no one has. &mdash; J I P  | Talk 18:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sadly George, this kind of stuff isn't what Wikipedia is for. I apologize for the effort you put in, but imagine if we had an article for the development of every strip of road in the United States. It would become unmanagable. I wish you the best in working on other articles. -^demon 18:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Mea culpa, mea culpa. I surrender. george 18:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think it would be reasonable for george to keep and maintain this article as a subpage of his user page here while he works on setting up a "Columbus Ohio Wiki" or some such MediaWiki site. Blackcats 20:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete too crufty.  Grue   21:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, verifiable and a usefully detailed history. Does a nice job of avoiding the promotional character and POV writing that are often pitfalls for local articles. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete It's not encyclopedic and a bit too crufty. We can't have historys of every little thing that been created in here. Sorry --Jaranda wat's sup 19:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Userfy - move to author's User page. This is an awkward call, but if this were a similar series of pictures of a more widely-known street (Rodeo Drive, Biscayne Boulevard, Michigan Avenue, for example), I'd have just as difficult a time accepting it as a stand-alone article. Put it on the author's user page and it would still be available for people to see. B.Wind 19:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Also... this is more of a tour of this stretch of Ohio highway. The history seems secondary to the pictures. B.Wind 19:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. As said above, this is not an article, it's a virtual tour of a not terribly historic area. Having this opens the door for anyone to upload pictures of every street corner in their hometown and wax nostalgic: "This is the interesction of Homsby and Splate, there's a Mobil station here now, but before that it was an A&P. Across the street is Teddy's Bowling, it's been open since 1978, but was renovated in '86." Not in an encyclopedia, please. -R. fiend 00:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Man, is this still going? I thought the usual AfD period was 5 days, this is 10 days old. (Glancing at the 13/12 log I don't see any other AfDs still open.) Anyway, I count 11 votes for Delete and 5 for Keep - that counts B.Wind's 'Userfy' as a Delete, which inclusionists may see as controversial, but then that's also counting the author's Keep, despite the fact that the same author has stated that the article was created in error. Anyway... only a 63% majority to delete, which some admins see as too low, but the sole contributor's "mea culpa" statement must count for something. --Last Malthusian 02:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems like a pretty clear delete to me. A userfy vote is a vote to delete from the wikipedia article space, which is the subject of this vote. I have no problems with it in the userspace, as long as it is deleted here (hence my "delete" vote). Had I realized how old this was I probably would have just closed it as delete, rather than voting. If nothign else happens soon, I may do just that. -R. fiend 02:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * In fact, I count only 4 keeps (that's including that author, which I would be very hesitant to do as a closer), are you counting the anon? -R. fiend 02:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support/Keep/whatever the term is. I personally couldn't care less about a stretch of road in Ohio but I support keeping this article because it is useful information to have in an encyclopedia for somebody somewhere sometime and ought to be preserved. Nobody will read it who is not looking for this information and it's not in anyone's way. I find Wikipedia useful for both broad and narrow topics. Maybe one day I will read here about the history and development of Steeles Avenue in Toronto, which I do have a mild fascination with. It would be a shame to delete this article.65.93.23.84 06:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Article should be hosted on a web page somewhere away from Wikipedia. Endomion 06:50, 23 December 2005 (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.