Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southwest Boulevard (Kansas City)


 * 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. SarahStierch (talk) 08:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Southwest Boulevard (Kansas City)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Contested prod. Search for sources found only directory listings for a Best Western with the same name or listings for businesses on the street. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic seems easy to expand and so should be kept per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Easy to expand with what? Directory listings for the Best Western located on the street? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:IMPERFECT is part of the editing policy, as you say so yourself. It is not part of the deletion policy, however, and is, thus, not relevant to this discussion. I believe WP:RUBBISH is the link you want - but please see WP:EFFORT. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We are editing the article, not deleting it, and so WP:IMPERFECT is the appropriate policy. Please see begging the question. Warden (talk) 10:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a deletion discussion at articles for deletion, but we're not discussing deleting it? - The Bushranger One ping only 02:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and close per above, shouldn't do more large deletions. JJ98 (Talk / Contribs)  23:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * While I think TPH jumped the gun on this one, I don't find this user recklessly nominates articles for deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources aren't as hard to find as the nom claims. The article already has some sources verifying the street's reputation for authentic Mexican food, and I found more sources (here, here, here, here, and here) about various development projects centered around the boulevard. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation
 * Keep per TheCatalyst31 - multiple sources exist which contain significant coverage for this street.  Gongshow  Talk 00:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:GNG, notable area and now sources are added.  Meets standard of being verifiable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Verifiability is not the standard for this road. Notability is. The notability of the area does not apply to the road. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources found by TheCatalyst31 which demonstrates passing WP:GNG. It does appear to be a major arterial road as the only non-freeway direct link between Rosedale and Downtown KS. --Oakshade (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. The references are irrelevant to the article, they reference things that are along that street. But all streets have things along them. Nothing special about Southwest Boulevard is demonstrated here. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * question What is our policy for the notability of "large roads"?  At first sight, this appears to be a road that's an important route for traffic, yet the article says nothing substantial about it, there are no sources to indicate any more, and it's basically boring.
 * Now when it comes to settlements, there's clear practice that if it exists enough to be listed in a gazetteer, then WP can't get rid of it. See Rosside, a village so tiny it's now exceed in area by its own WP article. Are we in a similar position for roads?   Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability (streets, roads, and highways) failed to establish a consensus. The de facto position is that major roads and historic roads with reasonable sources are ok because we have thousands of such articles. Warden (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The general consensus is that national ("Interstate ###", "U.S. Route ###") and primary state ("State Road ###") routes are notable per Wikipedia's position as a gazetteer. Secondary state and county roads are usually merged to lists unless they're sufficently notable otherwise. Named local roads and streets, however, are not kept, usually, barring WP:GNG of course - see Apalachee Parkway, for instance. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * One editors opinion: Western civilization loves their roads–governments make sure that their citizens know where they are, because the citizens want to drive cars on them, and people like having addresses so that they can receive mail. Including the consideration that maps are secondary reliable in-depth sources, all public roads will pass the general notability guideline.  But passing WP:GNG is not sufficient to pass the WP:N guideline, the road must also be "worthy of notice"  Technically, a limiting factor is the policy of WP:NOT indiscriminate information.  Roads are sometimes considered to be a part of the gazetteer, and the gazetteer doesn't need much of an article to be useful, but individual editors are known to argue to higher standards during AfD.  There is general agreement across the various notability essays, that some but not all roads are WP:N "worthy of notice".  My favorite notability street essay is User:Grutness/One street per 50,000 people.  A quick check is to see if Google maps adds emphasis to the road.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I believe U.S. Route 69 used to be routed over Southwest Blvd, if anyone can help source this history.  Though unsourced, K-58 (Kansas highway) states that US 69 was routed off the road in 1956.--Milowent • hasspoken  12:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited from the numbered route. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Did I say it was? I actually research and improve articles, I care not what those ignorant of a topic say in deletion discussions.--Milowent • hasspoken  02:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "I believe U.S. Route 69 used to be routed over Southwest Blvd", could be taken as implying that the fact the route used to be a numbered route confers notability. Apologies if I misread your intent, but I find your lack of good faith disturbing. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I am known for being a disturber at times.--Milowent • hasspoken 01:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete . Non-notable, run-of-the-mill local road that has only the routine coverage one expects of such a road, and nothing more. Notability is not inherited from the fact a U.S. route used to be routed along it. That said, TheCatalyst31's links might establish notability - although whether it's for the road or the business distict along the road, I can't be sure. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a history section, which can certainly be expanded more. I feel comfortable with notability at this point, and its clearly a major artery out of the city.--Milowent • hasspoken  03:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm still not 100% sold on a keep, but there's enough not to vote delete. So, neutral now I guess? - The Bushranger One ping only 02:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel rewarded a bit at least for my efforts! :-). --Milowent • hasspoken 01:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep All public roads pass WP:GNG.  This particular road is an artery, which means both that it passes WP:NOT and the "worthy of notice" clause of WP:N.  There is (more than) sufficient material to create an entry for the gazetteer.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, all public roads do not pass GNG. Those that are numbered national or state-level routes do, as part of Wikipedia's remit as a gazzeteer; local routes must prove they pass GNG. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I thoughtfully explained the theory for my !vote above. The force of my reason stands.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Typical city street.  Dough 48  72  04:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Impressive touch-up, Milowent.  Th e S te ve
 * Delete: Run-of-the-mill city street with no credible claim to notability beyond the immediate local level. This ain't Sunset Blvd. or Broadway by a longshot. Sources do not demonstrate sufficient notability, and my own searches turned up nothing even faintly promising. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment "not as popular as X" is not a reason to delete. I'm reminded of the phrase "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy"  Maybe so, but there are many other politicians that are "no Jack Kennedy" yet still qualify for notability in this encyclopedia, and the encyclopedia is better because of it.  Likewise, I'm sure we can reason the same for streets and neighborhoods that are not Sunset Boulevard or Broadway.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, "historic Southwest Boulevard", known today for its Hispanic culture and Mexican restaurants as pointed out in guidebooks is not deserved of such bashing. Far less "historic" roads are regularly kept at AfD if WP:GNG is met, e.g., Articles for deletion/Cary Parkway, Articles for deletion/Woodhaven Boulevard, Articles for deletion/Decatur Boulevard--Milowent • hasspoken  22:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:HEY. The sources found and added to the article seem to point towards notability.  Large boulevards in large cities have almost always been kept in the past, even if they are not state or Fderal highways. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 7 September 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.