Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bur Oak Avenue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bur Oak Avenue

Bur Oak Avenue (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Most of the article consists of places that are nonnotable. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada Roads/Golden Horseshoe#Issues to consider for the rationale. Johnny Au (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. This is a secondary arterial in a suburban city, which doesn't even have a regional road number, and was created by an editor who largely operates under the belief that every single street in Markham should have its own article — he's even created articles on residential cul-de-sacs. It doesn't cite a reference. And, in fact, this road is so new that it doesn't appear in the MapArt Toronto & Area 1999 edition. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Update: My apologies; this article wasn't created by the same person as the other two. Bearcat (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Bur Oak Avenue had become one of the major arterial in Markham. Just because this road does not have a regional road number, it does not mean that the road is not notable. If that is true, then why not delete Hurontario Street. Well, it does not have a regional road number. The road has now become the backbone of many Markham's new subdivisions. Bur Oak Avenue is widely used by at least 50,000 people. This is one notability. Another notability would be the cultural diversity along the road. Though not mentioned in the article yet (because the article was largely not written by me), the road near the community of Greensborough has European style buildings. In contrast, Wismer Commons is not constructed the same way. As well, the road is planned to be under MAJOR reconstruction by the Town of Markham, and hence, would be very notable once the reconstruction is completed, and that includes a Highway 407 ETR exit. The road will also be planned to further extend. Once again, this extension will serve as a backbone to new developments. Therefore, as well, notable. It is also, the longest municipal-owned road after the reconstruction has happened. Just because it's in a suburban city, it DOES NOT mean it's not notable. If so, would you as well delete roads in Second Line West for Mississauga. Just because it's new, it's does not mean it's not notable. Another notability. If you want history, why not delete every road that is built in 1990s? If 1990s roads are not notable, I'm sure there are many more for you to delete. By the way, Bur Oak is almost 10 years old. A 10 year old road would not be considered as so new. Newer roads include Highway 6 By-Pass, and there are many more handful selections in other cities. Bur Oak is also a "symbol" for Markham, as the road passes through many different cultural and ethnic communities. As well, Bur Oak marks the northern boundary for Historic Markham (AKA Old Markham), and the beginning of new subdivisions. With this boundary line, it is considered as notable as there is a conflict between new buildings and older ones (so there is a little history). By the way, a 1999 MapArt Toronto and Area Atlas is considered as VERY old, not even close to being updated. In that, you probably find Highway 407 ends at Markham Road, rather than Brock Road. You can also find in it, a really blank Mississauga map. Update your map, and then talk about "being new". Also, Bur Oak Avenue is the beginning to the Markham's new strategy of limiting urban sprawl. There are condos found along the route, which is very rare in Markham. Except for Town Centre Blvd. and Bullock Drive, I cannot recall anywhere with condos exist.
And as defense, I don't believe I will create an article for EVERY single street. Cul-de-sacs creations ONLY include Fox Point in Aurora, which was created because of the area's high wealth residential, which in contrast to many urban areas in York Region, it is rare. And, one point, Bur Oak Avenue is not a Cul-de-sac, but it might be so on a 1999 MapArt.
And as another defense point, I'm not just creating articles for Markham, I'm also beginning to make road articles for Vaughan and Richmond Hill. Other people are also as dedicated as I am creating articles for other cities.
P.S. Don't mistake me for not being civil. It's just all that I want to say, and every word comes from my honest opinion.
The Canadian Roadgeek (Road talk)22:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, you have previously created numerous articles about streets with absolutely no claim of encyclopedic notability whatsoever, including several residential cul-de-sacs. Nobody's predicting your future behaviour; I'm citing things you've already done. Secondly, out of all the reasons you've cited here for keeping this article, not a single one of them is consistent with actual Wikipedia policy or precedent for what makes a road notable enough to have an article on here. Roads get Wikipedia articles on the basis of being the centre of American theatre, formerly considered the longest street in the world, the home of several major national institutions or generally recognized as one of the world's most exclusive shopping districts, to name just four examples. Roads do not qualify for Wikipedia articles just because they exist as a crosslink between two regional roads in a city of 260,000 people, or because they happen to have condos on them.
Hurontario Street doesn't have an article because it's an arterial in Mississauga; it has an article because it extends all the way to Collingwood and was one of the original colonization roads that made it possible for people to even begin populating Dufferin and Simcoe Counties two centuries ago...and it used to have an actual provincial highway number, too. It doesn't have an article because it's important to Mississauga — it has an article because its importance transcends Mississauga. Can you recognize the difference there? A road in Markham or Mississauga does not qualify for an article on the basis of being important locally — it would qualify for an article on the basis of being famous enough beyond the city, or at least having enough of a historical context, that somebody living in Vancouver or London or Singapore might need to read an article about it. Bearcat (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Well then, how about deleting roads like Browns Line and Islington Avenue. Someone in Vancouver or London or Singapore would not be interested in reading it. Browns Line and Islington Avenue are just examples that they are not famous beyond Toronto. I doubt it's even famous beyond the Greater Toronto Area. If Hurontario Street does not work for you, how would you explain roads like Britannia Road? It's not about having condos on them. It's about the conflict between the old district and the new district of Markham, and how the road plays a major role to Markham's new policy of attempting to stop / limit urban sprawl.

I have also read the message you left for Ilovevancouver90909, I figure all the problem here is "history". Do you really think young roads do not deserve articles? Why would it be so? History... everyday, a new page of history is created. Let's just say, this road is considered as a rapid developing road, and it is expanding (no matter in traffic, or length). This road will become one of the major artery in Markham. It is planned to encomprise many communities. How about looking at it as an proposed road? Proposed roads do not have histories. Same with Bur Oak, which is proposed from Highway 7 down towards Ninth Line. If what you say is true, then I don't think proposed roads deserve articles as well. The Canadian Roadgeek (Road talk) at 00:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete per Bearcat. GreenJoe 00:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:50k is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) 15:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Editors are, however, obliged to follow WP:RS and WP:N. Bearcat (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I know full well that it's an essay. I wrote it, and as such is the definition I use to decide whether I think something should or should not get my supporty at AfD. Many other users also use it to decide on articles in the same way. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete let's see some independent third party sources which testify to its notability. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nomination and referenced discussion. Bur Oak is not a major arterial road, it is becoming a secondary artery at best. PKT (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article is essentially a list of places you'll find along the road, as well as roads that intersect this one. The accompanying list of roads parallel to this is odd and irrelevant. This road is nothing more than generic municipal infrastructure, with no definable historical or cultural characteristics beyond its mere existence. So, while it verifiably exists, it is an unencyclopedic topic. Mindmatrix 17:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep I can find nothing about this road that is notable, nothing at all, except for the number of people who have added to the page over the course of two years. If several people care so much about this road, why not leave it up? People in Singapore won't be required to read it. Elan26 (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Elan26

The reason of why so many are caring about it because this road affects so many people. It is considered as an aterial (though some non-residents of Markham may not agree) in Markham. It spans across Berczy Village, Wismer Commons, Greensborough, parts of Old Markham, and Cornell. It is the backbone and had been supporting new subdivisions to develop in the eastern end of the town. It also marks the transition line of old historical building and new subdivision townhouses. I agree with Elan26. If so many people care about it, why not leave it up? Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road talk) at 12:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The number of edits or editors is not a justification to keep. WP is not a directory. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2008 (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.