Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teaneck Circle


 * 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. Majorly 16:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Teaneck Circle

 * — (View AfD)

Completely unremarkable roundabout. Contested prod. MER-C 10:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Simply unimportant.Proabivouac 10:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete article admits it was a 'minor traffic circle' which doesn't even exist any more. SkierRMH 10:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. No assertion of notability and none can be found on Google either. Prolog 12:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, non notable road feature, not exactly a Spaghetti Junction by the sounds of it. Budgiekiller 13:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Retain I object to the deletion of this article, my first contribution. Article is accurate, short, and concise, written in a neutral tone. The category into which it falls is entitled List of NJ Traffic Circles. That an included circle be significant or important is neither required nor implied. List does not purport to contain only "remarkable or notable" circles. Cf: the other NJ Traffic Circles in list.  Is the nominator a native of NJ?  I am.  I am also familiar with all of the traffic circles on the list, some of which are/were comparable in size and importance to this one.  Those advocating deletion should first consult the list and note the large number of circles there which no longer exist. Existence of circle in present day is not a criterion for inclusion judging by the entries to which the word "defunct" is appended. To those for whom "Highway Jerseyana" is a subject of interest, my contribution adds accurate information by expanding the list. Finally, enlarging the list of NJ Traffic Circles as completely as possible helps to illustrates the initial rapid popularity and subsequent demise of this type of traffic control as posited in the main article about traffic circles.  Thanks to the Wikipedia community for helping me learn how the inclusion of articles is debated and resolved.Jeff.schwartz 02:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Retain This is definitely a true and noteworthy fact. The Teaneck Circle at Teaneck Rd. and Cedar Lane/E. Cedar Lane in Teaneck, NJ was something very memorable to many people who lived in that area and remember it well - including myself.  This fact should be retained for purposes of completeness and accuracy. — Spmny2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Being a 'fact' or 'noteworthy' does not make a topic encyclopedic. While the article is a nice read, there is no assertion of notability or any encyclopedic content in the article.  So that is why it will probably be deleted.  It simply does not assert any notability.  The best guideline is probably WP:LOCAL and I'm sure that it does not meet that guidelines for keeping.  My suggestion would be to merge.  If there are other articles that should be deleted for similar reasons, then list them on AfD. Their existence does not justify keeping similar articles. For the record, I had to rack my brain to see if I ever heard of this.  In the end I had, but that does not make it notable for me as a New Jersey native. Vegaswikian 00:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and do not keep per WP:LOCAL. I guess that the merge target should be Teaneck, New Jersey. Vegaswikian 00:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No assertion of notability. highlunder 14:58, 12 January 2007 (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.