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 no consensus. This is a discussion in which the !votes are spread all over the place. The arguments for keeping seem to rely on speculation on the notability of roads. Whether or not the guidelines should be amended, as for now, we must stick to what we have. These roads are not inherently notable, and failing GNG, should not have their own articles. I was on the verge of calling this one a "delete," but found SmokeyJoe's argument difficult to disregard. Therefore, I am closing this as "no consensus" between delete and merge. If anyone objects to the merger, please drop a note on my talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abbediengveien ++[edit]

Small, suburbian roads, not notable in any way. Geschichte (talk) 07:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. We don't delete articles on geographical locations. __meco (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong premise... See for instance Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B4632 road. According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Transportation, roads falls under a different category than places (namely "transportation"). If "county roads are disputed, but may be kept", what about these small suburbian roads then, some of which are less than 1 kilometre? Sorry, but your statement is simply not correct. Geschichte (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As stated on Geschichte's (talk) page, since there is a list of streets in Oslo here, which is full of redlinks, I felt that it would be appropriate to create articles for those streets with redlinks. Hectorthebat (talk) 07:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Norwegian Wikipedia has done a great job of creating viable articles for very many of Oslo's streets, including historical data. We should treasure the opportunity to be able to transfer that work here with little effort. __meco (talk) 08:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The preceding argument is based on no policy or guideline I am familiar with. Is there WP:TREASURE or WP:GREATJOB? Edison (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of what we have done in the past, we should start keeping them. DGG (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with that notion. Maybe it's time to revise our notability guidelines if articles on streets like these which rather self-evidently are useful in giving people a background on the geography of their neighbourhoods and thus also a stronger sense of community, aren't deemed worthy in the present wording of the guidelines. __meco (talk) 08:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why? We have never established that every street in the world is inherently notable. A street is not a town. No evidence it satisfies WP:N. Wikipedia is not a directory. Edison (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree what I said is not current practice. I'm suggesting we might want to change it. An encyclopedia can include a gazetteer. If a village of 10 house is notable, even if it has no organs of government, so might a street be of the same size.It's not unreasonable for someone to want to look it up here. We can provide verified information. And the consensus at the Norwegian WP appear to think so also, so I'm not uniquely peculiar in this view. I have waited for some support such as this to make the suggestion here. DGG (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, if you wish to launch Wikiteer as the "online gazetteer anyone can edit," I wholeheartedly encourage you and will support the project any way I can. It would serve a useful function different from that of an encyclopedia, just as Wiktionary and Wikinews do. This is not Wikiteer. Edison (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According the first of the five pillars Wikipedia incorporates the same elements of gazeteers as of encyclopedias. Print encyclopedias have always overlapped with print gazeteers, but the two types of publication have been kept separate for reasons of physical size. There's no reason to maintain such an arbitrary ill-defined distinction when we don't have such restrictions. Keep. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, maybe we have the opposite situation, and policy needs to be changed the other way? Who says a village of 10 people is notable? That's the way we do things now, but why? Gazetteers exist for a reason, and perhaps we shouldn't be duplicating their work at Wikipedia. Firestorm ^Talk 04:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is this AFD listed twice? Someone please delete the duplicate. Edison (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to indicate these roads are notable at all. Some roads, such as Downing street, are notable in and of themselves, while most roads are not. Bad Article Ideas criterion 2 applies here. Firestorm ^Talk 03:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing the GNG. Town streets that lack documentable historical or other significance have routinely been deleted at AfD. If DGG and Meco want to change this situation, I suggest that they seek a more appropriate forum. Deor (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable streets. Joe Chill (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all to the suburb they are in. These street articles contain encyclopedic information, such as history, how names, and appropriate intra-wiki links. This sort of information is part of the vision of wikipedia containing the sum of all human knowledge (but keeping spam and nonsense out). Granted, streets should probably not have their own articles, due to lack of interesting content differing from the next street, and the organisation and presentation of the information needs work, which means that merging all the streets into their suburbs, and dealing with them there is a productive way to go. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of these street articles seem to contain some documentable historical or other significance, and so the information has a place in Wikipedia.
References to WP:N and WP:GNG argue that these should not be stand-alone articles, but say little about whether we want to keep the information somehow. In each of these cases, the suburbs are existing articles that look like they need more content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I can't say it better than meco's response to DGG and DGG. Pzrmd (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per SmokeyJoe. Not all streets are notable. See WP:50k. Bearian (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.