Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C.


 * 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 NO CONSENSUS. Mo0 [ talk ] 21:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C.
Sub-trivia WP:NOT a collection of random stuff. Where to next List of streets in Paris named after trees? --Doc ask? 15:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC) -Doc ask? 15:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as listcruft. Ifnord 15:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - what the fuck? This is an important part of the D.C. street naming system - east-west lettered streets, north-south numbered streets, and diagonal state avenues. We already have articles on eight of them, and each one is major enough for an article. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 15:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If this is so important, then by all means write an article on it, and tell us why. But a trivia list, without commentry does not belong in an encyclopedia. --Doc ask? 15:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, what the fuck? This serves to provide links to the articles on the streets. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 15:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If that's all it's for, a category is probably a better idea. But are there really enough notable streets in Washington to warrant one? Robin Johnson 15:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There already is Category:Streets in Washington, D.C. which is one reason this list is unnecessary.


 * merge into article about DC . Are there really avenues named after all 50 states? Seems silly to make a list for that in that case, might as well redirect to list of US states.--Kalsermar 15:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is one named after each state. Are you going to add a link to each avenue on U.S. state? If not, the redirect would be useless. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 15:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to Delete, having read the discussion I agree wholeheartedly on the use of categories in this case. Also, just a sentence or two in the DC article saying there is an avenue for every state in the Union is sufficient with perhaps links to the 2 or 3 truly notable ones (Pennsylvania comes to mind of course)--Kalsermar 18:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Those that have articles can go in a category or streets in DC. -R. fiend 16:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep A legitimate almanac style entry. Far from being random it organises the entries concerning an important aspect of the nomemclature of the capital of a major country. CalJW 16:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Care to explain your reasoning?  howch e  ng   {chat} 07:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge, but i don't know where to. --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 16:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Every state in the union has a road named after it in DC, and the better part of them are not notable. Notable streets and circles in Washington are already properly categorized. This list adds no more value to the encyclopedia than would a list of lettered street names. - choster 17:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Are we also going to have East-west streets in Washington, D.C. named after letters of the alphabet? How about Streets in Philadelphia named after trees? This is pointless list making. The fact that every state has a diagonal avenue is already mentioned in the Washington, D.C. article. Plus there is Category:Streets in Washington, D.C. There is also Geography of Washington, D.C. which discusses in detail Washington's street layout and how streets are named. A side note: the list says Columbia Road was named after the District of Columbia. Is this true? Could it not have been named for the historical Columbia just as D.C. was? Don't know the answer to that one. --[[Image:Flag of Washington, D.C.svg|30px]] D.M. (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Category is sufficient. --Ajdz 20:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, indiscriminate collection of information. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Please learn to use categories. '  (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 00:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The category is just fine and you can just replace the links in Washington, D.C. and Geography of Washington, D.C. to go to the category instead.  howch e  ng   {chat} 00:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. &mdash; Dan | talk 01:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Care to explain your reasoning?  howch e  ng   {chat} 07:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * keep.  03:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Care to explain your reasoning?  howch e  ng   {chat} 07:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. What categories are for. --Calton | Talk 04:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is what categories are for; the list is simply a list created just for the sake of having a list, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 12:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The fact that there's a street from each of the 50 states doesn't need its own article.  Other than the naming trivia, there's no reason to limit such a list to those 50 states, but expanding it to List of Streets in Washington is nothing I want to be responsible for.  And as a collection of links, Category:Streets in Washington, D.C. does a nice job. ×Meegs 21:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not a "list of streets in washington". its a list of streets named after U.S. states. Making it a category would be wrong because its not a category of ALL streets in D.C., but rather just the ones named after states. Placing this into a category without an article is pointless. --Timecop 01:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand, but I think limiting a category or list to this naming scheme is not useful. ×Meegs 03:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Use categories. -Rebelguys2 03:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this is better suited for categories. And is a little too obsucure for a list of its own.Gateman1997 20:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Speedy Keep. SPUI's contributions are of unparallelled quality and this article is no different. This is an excellent encyclopaedic piece and must NOT be deleted. --Timecop 01:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, per Timecop. incog 01:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - SPUI is right. Whatever he says. -- Femmina 01:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: the above 3 votes are all made by trolls. -R. fiend 05:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - mod parent down. link goes to goatse. last time I checked I was an human. -- Femmina 08:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Sure, categories work for things like YTMND pages, or pokemon. But this is of ENCYLOPEADIC QUALITY.  Quite a few of these roads are mentioned in my World Book '94. Jmax- 11:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Good article, I has value and notability. --Depakote 11:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Note to closer - the last five voters are all connected with GNAA trolls --Doc ask?  12:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How is this relevant? Their opinions are just as valid, and they're clearly not trolling here.  16:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course they're trolling here. Should be obvious to anyone. -R. fiend 16:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Don't accuse people of trollhood if they disagree with you.   &#08492;  astique  &#09660;  par &#08467; er  &#09829;  voir  &#09809;  22:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I accuse them of trolling because they're trolls. And anyone who says "SPUI's contributions are of unparallelled quality" is a troll. Or a moron. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt, because I'm such a nice guy. -R. fiend 00:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? I have been totally civil while on wikipedia; Please do not call me names and insinuate otherwise.  I have done my best part to contribute to wikipedia all that I can, despite my hurdles Jmax- 02:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * R. fiend, you are way out of line. WP:CIVIL    &#08492;  astique 13:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - State-named avenues are a distinctive feature of Washington DC, and of symbolic significance because it is the nation's capitol. Which states are included and which are not, is the sort of civics question people in the U.S. might be curious about. The information is clearly factual and verifiable.  Category:lists shows many lists that seem far less worthy than the list under discussion, but taken as a whole our large collection of lists is a particularly valuable resource and a distinctive feature unique to Wikipedia. In my opinion, lists should always be given the benefit of the doubt.--agr 15:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: all 50 states have a street and are included in the list. ×Meegs 15:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but two, Ohio and California are not major avenues. Perhaps the distinction needs to be make clearer in the article but that is a cleanup question. Another advantage of the list format is that as new roads get their own articles, they are automatically linked. I'm not saying an article format might not be a better way to treat this subject, but if so let someone write it and redirect the list. We shouldn't be wasting people's time (and discouraging valuable editors) by arguing about harmless lists.--agr 16:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not true. Washington doesn't have an Avenue.  At all.  I swear.  There's a Washington Circle, but given that George Washington's statue adorns it pretty much precludes it from being named for the state.    &#08492;  astique  &#09660;  par &#08467; er  &#09829;  voir  &#09809;  22:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh come on, having this article is just like having an article List of numbered streets in Manhattan, which has the contents "1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th..." all the way up to 100 and whatever, and, when told that it's completely pointless, arguing that "it's significant that the east-west streets in Manhattan are numbered, we need this article so everyone knows that." Just mention in the DC article that there's a street for each state (which I bet it already does) and those that are significant enough to have article can be in the Streets of DC category. It's appallingly simple. -R. fiend 21:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. If a street is worth an article, which many are, then a any conglomeration is worth a list.  Why so delete-happy?  Someone did a lot of hard work for this.    &#08492;  astique  &#09660;  par &#08467; er  &#09829;  voir  &#09809;  21:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So by that argument, if, say Broadway is worth an article, then we should have a List of streets in New York State, because some of them will have articles. And no one did any hard work on this. It's a very simple list. -R. fiend 22:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not agree that your logic is entirely correct. Someone was doing a lot of work on it (but the animosity toward a worthwhile contributor here seems to have gotten rid of him), there probably should be a list of numbered Avenues in New York, and there's no reason to delete listy articles out of hand.  This one is more than a little useful and Wikipedia can handle it.  And putting rebuttals to every single "Keep" vote, especially from those of us who have been here a while, is not going to bring anyone over to your side of the argument.    &#08492;  astique  &#09660;  par &#08467; er  &#09829;  voir  &#09809;  22:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, and no, I do not care to explain my reasoning. Mike H. That's hot 22:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, since this is a discussion and not a vote, your contribution may well be ignored.--Doc ask?  23:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Really? I thought it was a vote.  Hense its presence at Articles for deletion -   &#08492;  astique 13:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you thought wrong. I quote: 'Articles for Deletion (formerly Votes for deletion) is where Wikipedians discuss whether articles should be deleted. Items sent here usually wait five days or so while debate takes place ...' (emphasis added). Statements that do not contribute to the discussion or debate have no value. --Doc ask?  14:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. A category could not have the red links to show which streets still need articles. - SimonP 00:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * A useful article would be Notable streets of Washington, D.C. or State-named Avenues in Washington D.C. that establishes why these streets are interesting for anything other than a common characteristic of their name. I work just off Maryland Avenue and I have to tell you, Maryland Avenue is not notable. This is indiscriminate, it is a list for the sake of having a list, like List of sports teams with singular team names or List of buildings with their own ZIP code or List of world leaders mentioned on Family Guy.-choster 02:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Categories are better suited for this kind of thing. Streets and avenues in all cities are named following a pattern after all, that's an inherent part of city planning. It seems that the majority of the avenues in this list are notable because they follow this particular pattern, not the other way around. I support articles on individual avenues/streets that are notable, but this particular brand of "notability by association" is pushing it a bit too far IMHO. -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 02:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. per SimonP. --James S. 04:01, 28 January 2006 (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.