Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knapp Street


 * 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   delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Knapp Street

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This is the second time an article for this street has been created. The first version was deleted two years ago because of an expired PROD that deemed this street unnotable. It was recreated about a year ago and contrary to what it currently says, Knapp Street is not a major thoroughfare (central reservations do not necessarily determine that). Driving through it on Google Maps shows that it is a relatively short, mostly residential (particularly north of Voorhies Avenue) street. No public transportation service goes there full time and having a sewage plant, exit on a highway, or hotel (especially one that is not world famous like The Plaza or Waldorf-Astoria) does not prove its significance to the city. Furthermore, the single book source in the article only mentions the street once with no major events happening there and searching the street on Google Books only comes up with travel guides, neighborhood reports, encyclopedias, and other meaningless works that do not make this street notable for Wikipedia. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all about short, insignificant residential streets in Staten Island with irrelevant sources that are about real estate the "landmarks" (which are actually just local businesses and points of interests) on the streets, not the streets themselves. See Articles for deletion/Reid Avenue and Articles for deletion/Justin_Avenue for more.
 * The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 9.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  13:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete all. They all fail WP:GNG. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 22:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Public streets in the U.S. always pass WP:GNG. Public money was paid for them, studies get done such as how much traffic goes various ways through intersections.  Cartographers are secondary independent sources.  People want to know where they are so that they can drive on them.  The post office makes use of street addresses.  Enough pot holes, and politicians can lose their jobs.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've mentioned before, streets at the state-primary level and above are 'automatically notable'. Those at the secondary state/county level and down most often do not. Cartographical sources are routine coverage. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Routine coverage is the kind of coverage that Obama gets. As per WP:N, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below."  The previous post has a Wikilink to WP:ROUTINE, which is an anchor in WP:Notability (events).  WP:Notability (events) is referenced at WP:NOT.  WP:ROUTINE states, "Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article."  In summary, routine coverage for topics like the one being discussed is evidence under our guidelines and policy that a topic passes WP:GNG.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And appearance in a road atlas, even every road atlas ever published, does not establish notability. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete all—public streets don't "always pass WP:GNG". Some of these should have some level of disambiguation applied if they continue to exist. Why is this Knapp Street primary over the one in Grand Rapids, Michigan, which is the equivalent to 2 Mile Road in that county's mile road system? Unscintillating's comments on how these streets supposedly pass GNG aren't exactly the case. Each article must make an individual claim to notability. Concerning the nominated Knapp Street, footnote 1 only establishes notability for the sewage plant. Footnote 2 only establishes notability for the hotel, not the street. Foonote 3, as mentioned in the article, is a "brief mention", which doesn't establish notability. Notability isn't inherited by the street only which these features are located. Based on past precedent, as outlined in WP:ROADOUTCOMES, city streets have contested notability; they simply need to demonstrate that the street itself is notable. These articles do not. Saying they are "residential yet important" or "residential yet primary" or even just "primary" without some official source to back that status is a bit of a POV. (In my home state, county roads and city streets are legally classified as either primary/local or major/minor respectively.) Claiming primary status without a source to back that (and no, the wider yellow line on Google Maps won't cut it) is an enhancement, and there aren't sources to back any claims of notability in these articles.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:37, 11 July 2012 (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.