Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of main streets of New Zealand cities


 * 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. This one is a borderline No Consensus but the arguments to keep do nothing to rebut the principal problem with the article: it has no apparent criteria for including content (who decides what qualifies as a "main road"?) and cites no references that would satisfy WP:GEOROAD.  A  Train ''talk 15:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

List of main streets of New Zealand cities

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Massive list of prominent streets in various New Zealand cities and towns. Of the lists entries approximately 10% have articles associated but much of the rest are arbitrary roads or streets of lesser significance. There is a vague guide to inclusion however the whole article is unsourced. Article appears to be more of a travel guide WP:NOTTRAVEL. This list would be better suited to be replaced with a category. Ajf773 (talk) 10:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transport-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as a list with no encyclopedic value. Perhaps there could be a lot said about some of these streets, but that would be better said in the city's article, with sources.  " Pepper "  @ 01:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I think the current category hierarchy is fine - no need to add a Category:Main Streets in New Zealand subcat to Category:Streets in New Zealand.  " Pepper "  @ 01:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, the current category hierarchy is fine. Ajf773 (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd like to hear your thoughts, as the 2005 creator of this article, whether you think it can be turned into something that is more in line with an encyclopaedic entry.  Schwede 66  09:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's certainly got out of hand from how I'd originally envisioned it, and is more a Wikitravel thin than a WP article. May be better to delete for now with no prejudice against creation of a new more encyclopaedic page later. Grutness...wha?  06:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment I've pruned the content of the article relating to the cities I'm most familiar with down to the single main street, as an example of what the article could be. But seeing that - would it actually be more appropriate to convert the article to a template to show at the bottom of articles such as Colombo Street? Daveosaurus (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. See wp:CLT for how categories, lists, navigation templates are complementary.  Pretty much wherever there is one, the others are good to have, too.  Here there is Category:Roads in New Zealand.  The advantage of a list is that it can include redlinks suggesting where articles are needed, and blacklink items too, and it can contain sources and photos and text descriptions.  The list is not great...it would be better if someone would make a table out of it and add descriptive/comparative information, but the topic is rock solid valid.  Note that one combined list is nicer than a separate list-article about roads in each separate city.  This allows for comparisons across cities, and they're all pretty much the same kind of thing. -- do  ncr  am  02:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not the most exciting work in Wikipedia, but see List of streets in Baltimore, matching Category:Streets in Baltimore. It has extensive notes on some of the streets that I am sure is interesting to some.  Note it includes blacklink items: the editors judge that the important street articles have been created; it is not calling for articles to be created. I am not so much a fan of navigation templates.  The only way they can list items without articles is by including them as redlinks, which gives the wrong signals where articles are not really needed.  Causing AFDs down the road. :) -- do  ncr  am  03:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would argue, however, that the scope of this article is too broad. I'll throw in the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS note that the similar scope of "Streets in [country]" is a whole wikiproject for some larger countries, and virtually all existing "List of streets in [location]" articles are on the city scale. The "main street" qualifier is also tough, as the article mentions. It's susceptible to individual perception, like User:Daveosaurus removing tens of streets (including some with articles), and seems like an unnecessary qualifier to me.  " Pepper "  @ 04:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll just note here that not all notable streets are the main street of a town, and not all main streets may be notable themselves - e.g. probably the most notable street in Dunedin is a long suburban cul-de-sac. If you don't agree with the way the article was pruned, just fix it. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We have a category already for roads in New Zealand and only 10% of the streets in the list have their own article. If this page is kept, it should be trimmed right down and restarted, leaving in only the notable ones - or with significant coverage from secondary sources. The list in its current form is more of a travel guide than an encyclopedic entry. Ajf773 (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 01:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete; collection of indiscriminate information about a non-notable topic; no substantial coverage in reliable sources about the topic of main streets of New Zealand cities is apparent.  Sandstein   06:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as nothing at all from this would conclude an actually convincing article with its own need, since it's only a list of those streets. SwisterTwister   talk  04:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. List articles have as one of their purposes dealing with topics too minor to require a main article. There is no requirement at all that collectively or separately the topic be suitable for a narrative article. Categories and lists are complementary--the main virtue of categories is that they populate automatically; the main deficiency is that they can provide no contest at all, while a list can indicate, for example, the city.  DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I asked a question a few weeks back but then didn't get back to this to state that I lean towards deletion of this list article. I just find it too difficult to define inclusion criteria; what should be in, and what should not be? Articles that exist can be made accessible through categories and navboxes; the latter can deal with redlinks indicating notable topics. Navboxes would presumably cover smaller areas (down to city level if we want) rather than the whole country. This, to me, appears far more suitable to deal with scope queries.  Schwede 66  00:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The topic of the list appears too broad. Streets are, in a majority of jurisdictions, under the purview of local governments; thus, while a list of major streets in a city-equivalent may be an appropriate topic, such a list for those presented at the national level seems indiscriminate. -- Kinu  t/c 16:36, 1 September 2016 (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.