Conclusions

1. There isn't much of a consensus below. Maybe an attempt should be made to salvage and get some sort of guideline ('keep if above this bar, merge if below')

Sometimes, a group of similar or related articles is nominated for deletion over a short period of time. In cases like this, it seems prudent to have one centralized discussion about the entire group, rather than repeating arguments over each member thereof. This is an attempt to forum consensus on one such groups of articles.

Wikipedia has long had a number of pages individual streets and roads. Some roads in the world certainly deserve articles (eg Broadway), while some might not (Benson Street (Albany, New York)). Where the line is drawn, and the fate of dozens of articles recently written needs discussion. There have been some recent VfD's regarding these articles; an example includes Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Southwest Boulevard. Very recently a user has been adding articles to Category:Toronto streets. Some consider some of these to be of questionable value. At least one of these, Carlton Street, is listed on VfD. Rather than adding them one at a time it seems a discussion in this forum might be more worthwhile. In June 2004 there was a similar discussion about roads in Ottawa, Canada it was eventually decided its streets are encyclopedic. That discussion is archived at Talk:List of Ottawa, Ontario roads.

The notion has been put forward that any road with something of note on it is worthy of an article. This should be discussed. Note that 'something of note' is sometimes taken to mean 'it is nearby a certain attraction', or 'it is named after somebody famous'. The majority of these articles are created by User:206.47.220.230 and User:64.229.26.133.

Also see

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Danforth Avenue
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/M4 Bus Route
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/W. 21st St. was closed and deleted.
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Southwest Boulevard was closed and deleted.

I would recommend the bar for notability be set such that a person living 1000 kilometers or further from the road in question might reasonably be expected to have knowledge of the road. This would allow for articles on Rodeo Drive or Champs-Élysées along with major highways. At the same time streets that only a local would know about would be excluded. --Allen3 01:33, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Allen3, I am hesitant on using only an absolute rule such as 1000 kilometers. Such a rule would disqualify any street in Luxembourg that is only notable to the people inside that country. Zzyzx11 04:50, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I agree that notability has to be the deciding factor here. Major highways are fine. Roads with historical or cultural significance are fine. Minor roads should be deleted. DaveTheRed 05:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• How about we change '1000 km' to something like 'not anywhere near there'. People all over the world know of the Champs Elysees or about Trafalgar Square. People from reasonably nearby haven't even heard of Kloksteeg or Tweede binnenvestgracht. Wikipedia is not a roadmap, so all non-notable roads should go to WikiTravel (if they want it) but certainly not here. Not to mention the fact that many streets have such common names as to exist a thousandfold in different cities. Radiant_* 11:57, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Wiki may not be a roadmap, but Wiki is not paper. Who is to determine notability? --TVPR 19:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• A fixed limit like 1000 km is a bad idea. It'd exclude things like Kalverstraat and Coolsingel or perhaps de Wallen  ? . How about we say that streets must be known by people outside a particular municipality? I'll note that this proposal errs slightly on the side of inclusion, but not by much. I think that at least all streets showing up on diverse monopoly boards should be included. :-P Kim Bruning 14:05, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Including Dorpsstraat, Ons Dorp? :) Seriously though, the monopoly test doesn't sound like a good idea because there are literally hundreds of kinds of monopoly, including some on relatively small communities. De Wallen is an obvious part of Amsterdam's sex/drugs/rock'n'roll image. But I don't particularly see what's so special about the Coolsingel or Kalverstraat. Both are large streets with a large number of shops, but how is that special? And quite some people where I live (Leiden) don't know what the Coolsingel is. "Municipality" is too easy a criterion; if two small villages are nearby, they probably know of one another's streets. Radiant_* 14:24, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well I'm darn curious as to what each of those squares on my monopoly board mean! :-) re municipality, that was a bit of a thinko: I was thinking of county (gemeente). Two villages next to each other will typically be in the same county, and hence the test would fail for them. :-) Kim Bruning 14:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I am agreeable to alternates to a hard and fixed distance (such as 1000 km). I do believe however that the key to a workable guideline is any road must be known to people who do not live in the same city as the road. --Allen3 14:14, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• A problem with the "heard of outside of the general area" issue is streets like 44th Street in Manhattan. Have people heard of it? They must at least have inferred its existence. I think one of the problems here is that in some cases it seems a user or two is trying to make a map of the city, but unable to furnish a real road map he has instead decided to describe it piece by piece. This is an awful idea. I think it would be beneficial to wikipedia if we could include a map for most major cities. I suppose most good ones are copyrighted, but is there a way we could get some through fair use, or find some that arent copyrighted (obviously ones that have expired will be too old to be much use)? That would get rid of the "need" for articles that say "Scrumply Street is an East-West Street is Fritterburg that begins at Octogon Ave and terminates at Plook Blvd....". People could see that on a map; no need to describe it. Now as for what deserves an article, I think part of the criteria should be how much of substance can be said about the street. Anyone can write a paragraph or two on any street, but if the only real content consists of the fact that the road contains to access ramp to the parking lot of the museum of ear wax then just forget about it. -R. fiend 14:42, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Instead of "heard of outside of the general area", maybe we should use "listed as an attraction in a tourbook". This is a quantifiable measure that is easily demonstrated by including a citation in the article's reference section. Being listed as an attraction is needed to rule out references based restaurant or hotel street addresses. Major highways would then be listed under a seperate criteria. --Allen3 18:21, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, but most roads still are nothing special, even if there's an attraction on that street. For instance, the street on which the Louvre or the Smithsonian is located, is still just a street and does not require its own article (merge to the attraction, instead). I do agree with R.Fiend's idea for maps (and I do believe maps aren't copyrightable, but IANAL so please doublecheck that), except that those probably belong in WikiTravel, which likely already has them. We can do an interwiki link there. Or, if they're images anyway, they should be on WikiCommons and we can read them like that. Radiant_* 20:44, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • I like this criterium for notability, however, I would suggest that we have a few ways a street could be notable, like the 'known outside of area' criterium, the 'noted in tourbook' (maybe add to this 'or is the subject of a news article'?) criterium, and maybe a criterium of 'noted for more than one location or feature' (otherwise it should be mentioned under that item's wikipedia entry). -- Glen Finney 15:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what the copyright laws on maps are, but I don't think we could lift one right out of mapquest and use it here, but I could be wrong. I recall once reading about something I believe called "trap streets" which were fake streets mapmakers added on to maps they made so they could tell if another company copied their maps. I don't know doing so was an actual crime however. Anyway, I think maps could be useful for cities in an encyclopedia, and needn't be relegeated to wikitravel, unlike articles on minor streets. -R. fiend 23:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. When I saw the many newpages for streets (in Toronto) being started, I took a look and found many of them non-notable and also common streetnames (eg:Front Street) . I moved several of them from Streetname to Streetname (Toronto) to reduce ambiguity . This resulted in a Stop doing that notice on my talk page from SimonP. I explained the what and why of my actions and offered to help with disambiguation but what happened was that all of my moves to include the city name were re-moved from Streetname (Toronto) to Streetname (one of which is now on VfD ). I agree that there should be some notability criteria in order to prevent Anyone from Anyplace from launching a similar campaign. Well heck, I could make my own town seem more important by starting a hundred or so Streetname pages tonight. Right? ;-) hydnjo talk 20:53, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• The criteria of "listed as an attraction in a tour book" sounds good. It's straightforward, it's easily verifiable, and it gives a fairly high bar for defining notability. --Carnildo 21:34, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • So Front Streeet and Back Street on St. Martin would be OK to list by that criteria. While I could see some logic for listing Front street due to the shopping, there is not much on Back Street. At least based on what I saw on my last visit. I think the suggestion is good, however what's in guide books is not always that noteable.Vegaswikian 01:12, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, perhaps if a guidebook mentions something notable about the street. The discussion brought to my mind Duval Street in Key West, which is unremarkable except that Fantasy Fest is held there every year. -- 8^D BD2412^gab 03:04, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
• I like the "listed as an attraction in a guidebook" and "what can be said that is of substance" criteria. The Kalverstraat and the Coolsingel are famous Dutch roads, even for people living outside Amsterdam and Rotterdam where those streets are. Also, if IIRC Kalverstraat is the most expensive place to shop in the Netherlands and it has some significant architecture. I think it's possible to write an interesting article on those if someone knows enough about them. I'd also like to suggest such articles should include more info than just their location or the year they were built. Mgm|^(talk) 10:03, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• I think we also need a "of historical significance" criteria. For instance, we have an article on El Camino Real (California), which is probably not listed as an attraction in any tour book. However it does have historical significance as the first main north-south road in California. Dave the Red 07:08, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• My default inclusion criterion is: A subject should have an article if a valid non-stub article could reasonably be written about the subject, without resorting to filler, trivia, or unverifiable information. I think this applies very well to the road situation. If an article reads just "X street is N miles long and runs from point Y to point Z", then it should definitely go. Some streets are destinations in themselves (i.e. Bourbon Street) and have a substantial bit of history which can easily be used to flesh out an article. We must remember at all times that we're creating a general-interest encyclopedia, and that the information we choose to include must reflect this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:19, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• My personal list of criteria on whether a particular street passes the bar of notability for Wikipedia is as follows. Major highways, such as the motorway system used in Great Britain or the intestate and national highway system in the US, are inherently notable enough for inclusion. Roadways belong to a regional network linking cities over a considerable distance, such as state highway systems, are probably worthy of inclusion, although they may be better suited to looking at on a case by case basis. For all remaining roads, it's possible to come up with some arbitrary lists of criteria, such as "Must be at least X meters long" or "Must be well known at X distance" or "Must be mentioned in travel guides", but any specific sort of criteria like that will have exceptions to the rule, kind of defeating the purpose of said rule. I think the question needs to be asked of any particular road, when considering for inclusion, "Is there something about this road that distinguishes it from the next road down, and the rest of the roads in town?" If one can pick distinguishing factors that go beyond physical location, then inclusion is probably granted. For example, Rodeo Drive is distinguished for its association with the expensive shops, the rich and the famous, and thus is worthy of inclusion; Camden Drive, which runs parallel and next to Rodeo and through essentially the same part of town, is not associated with the same things, is not distinguished from any other road in Beverly Hills, and thus is not worthy of inclusion. Granted, it is still a subjective matter as to whether or not any given roadway is distinguished from its neighbors, but I think if an author really asks themselves that question, we'll eliminate a lot of needless articles. Arkyan 19:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Personally, I think that a road should be either a) famous as per above examples or b)A part of a state or national highway system. A residential street isn't notable, but, IMHO, highways, with their broad range and high traffic, are. Meelar (talk) 06:59, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• It is pointless to try to define notability when individual streets are notable is such different ways. There is no need for a change to the existing system of voting on individual streets when nominated. Oliver Chettle 04:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• The criteria I support for notability are: 1) "Must be mentioned in a travel guide, in an encyclopedia or in a source of similar or higher significance" and/or 2) "Must be of national significance or known throughout a state/country". The article should prove that. I do not support the criterium "must be at least X meters long" neither "must be well known at X distance". Would we define X meters and X distance according to the criteria of N.Y. - or to the criteria of Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia? Many streets in the world are short and unknown X miles away but are notable according to other criteria and worthy of being included in Wikipedia. Remember that Wikipedia is not a paper and that we have to fight systemic bias. --Eleassar777 14:25, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The mile limit is like most other arbitary limits on WP, in that it's useless. How many people in central/southern France do you think have heard of the M77 Motorway in Scotland (about 1000 miles away)? It is still notable due to the usage it gets, and the political & social upheaval caused by the building of it. More sensible would be that it has a unique identifying number within that country (e.g. an Interstate number in the US, an M-, A- or B- number in the UK etc.), as this is typically the mark of a road considered notable within that country --Cynical 13:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that any category that contains articles on streets should only be named something similar to Category:Famous California streets. Zzyzx11 04:59, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Strong concur with that. Radiant_* 11:57, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Please be aware of some history here. Back in early 2002, after a long and acrimonious debate, it was decided that adjectives like famous abd notable should expunged from page titles. It was dediced that it is assumed that all people and things in lists and categories are famous that words like famous are inherently arbitrary. - SimonP 17:30, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • If this is policy, please show us where this is written. If it's merely a decision taken three years ago, consensus may have changed since then. I've seen several lists with 'famous' attached to their name. Radiant_* 19:43, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
      • See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Lists. - SimonP 21:45, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
        • I see. However, that is not policy, and a quick browse of Category:Lists reveals a number of lists that are named differently. The same convention, by the way, suggests not using lists at all (using categories instead). The problem with omitting the 'famous' is that people could easily be tempted to add the street they live in, since, well, it's a street.
        • Note that I am fully in favor of creating consistency in the listing and categorization system, but that should be decided somewhere else, and would likely require a software upgrade before it becomes useful. Radiant_* 08:35, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with SimonP. In an encylcopedia, it should be assumed without explanation that contents are of a reasonable encyclopedic notability. If there's an article entitled "List of American artists", it should go without saying that its contents won't include everybody who's done fingerpainting during art time at kindergarden, and one entitled "List of wars" won't include family feuds and bar fights. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:57, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • That is a point of view category name, and I will nominate any such categories I see for renaming. Oliver Chettle 04:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just found this page that a user named Earl Andrew created: List of Toronto, Ontario roads. All the roads on the list were made into links, which I believe is a major reason why several dozen road articles in Toronto were recently created. I think something should be done about articles such as this, and a policy should be put in palce that roads on such lists are made into links only after the article on the road is created. It might not make a huge difference, but it won't be such an encouragment for people to make useless articles on minor roads. -R. fiend 14:50, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• -sigh- that's exactly why people shouldn't create long lists of redlinks. Radiant_* 20:44, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Will those roads ever be encyclopedic as an article?Vegaswikian 07:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Many examples on List of Toronto, Ontario roads as well as CAtegory:Toronto streets (but not all)
• W. 21st St.
• Elveley Drive
• Rigga Road
• Arthur Avenue (The Bronx)

Perhaps the precedent that seems to be in place for Towns within a State such as List of New Hampshire places might be applied to streets within a City/Town. This precedent requires at least that the Articlename have some specificity. In this example, the Articlename must include the Town name, State. This rule would not allow an article named Concord for example because it not sufficiently specific, whereas the article Concord, New Hampshire is fine. Applying this kind of rule would not permit an article to be named Carlton Street (too vague the rule would say) but could permit Carlton Street, Toronto, Ontario (because of it's specificity) and not really worry about how long the street is or who knows (or cares) about it. This way we wouldn't need the "Streetname Notability Police" (which would be difficult and time-consuming) but just watch for sufficient specificity (a lot easier). Comments? hydnjo talk 18:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• That naming convention does make sense. It mirrors naming concerns I have expressed about town pages in Europe that don't list a state or Provence or country. However it still leaves open the issue of what roads are notable and belong here. Some how most do not seem to belong here. If they are allowed here they could easily make up 90% of the pages. I think a better place for them needs to be found. Maybe travel is the place, but I'm not sure. As to notable, can I start a list of streets that don't go anywhere, or streets that are one block long with no buildings, or streets named after famous kings? I'm not saying I want to do that, just pointing out what allowing all of those street names in here leaves open.Vegaswikian 18:38, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I propose " Full Street Name (City, State, Country) " Melikes parentheses. - Klonimus 08:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• My point exactly. Who the heck wants to go through the likes of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Carlton Street for every Streetname article. Let the Streetnamers have at it but with Our rules with which a speedy-delete decision could be made in about 5 seconds or so. hydnjo talk 19:14, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• The Template could say "Speedy Delete - Streetname not specific". I guess I'm preaching pragmatism instead of hand-wringing in this matter. By the way, I'm not advocating that this be applied to Busroutes. That's another matter entirely. ;-) hydnjo talk 19:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Wait. No. The problem is not in the naming. The problem is that the majority of street articles can never be more than a stub, because the information in there is trivial ('this street connects that and that streets, and is near to such-and-such attraction, and was named after this famous person with description of that famous person'). Such articles are inherently unencyclopedic, no matter what they're called. As with bands and biographies, it would be nice to have some guidelines for inclusion of streets. Or else, merge them into lists by cities. That's even better organized!
  • As a side point, you'll never get consensual support for articles being speedied for having the wrong name. Nor would I support that. Radiant_* 19:43, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • OK then, if merged into lists by city would each street have a Namepage as you view it? hydnjo talk 20:00, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Or would it be more like List of Hoboken streets. hydnjo talk 00:40, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • That's for a town of 48 streets. How would that work for a city with thousands of streets?Vegaswikian 01:18, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• This is another format: List of roads and highways. hydnjo talk 01:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I think List_of_London_roads has the right idea. You don't list all streets (at least not if there are more than 48 :) ) because that'd be pointless. You list the important ones. Radiant_* 08:48, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • I like that that as well. Just as long as we don't meddle too much as to importance. hydnjo talk 14:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I think the London list is a bit overkill, just as the Toronto one. Many of the streets are quite famous, but many are stubs than might as well be merged with the neighborhood of London they're in. Also, some of those on the list aren't streets at all, but sections of London, squares, etc., so the whole page needs work. I see no reason, for example, why Pudding Lane is not a merge/redirect too the Great Fire of London, because that's the only reason it is significant. If this is going to be used as a format for other cities' roads it needs to be trimmed and sorted. -R. fiend 19:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Some kind of naming convention needs to be reached soon, even if nothing else is done. Today 56th Street got added, I assumed another NYC street. But no, its a street in BC. So some kind of convention for page names needs to be decided on since this is going to be an ongoing problem. The sooner this is done, the less cleanup that will be needed. Vegaswikian 00:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What do people think about Manhattan streets, 23-42? If for any street the Notes column gets too big, it could be broken off into its own article (like is done for 23rd Street, 34th Street and 42nd Street). All other street names (properly disambiguated with (Manhattan)) redirect to that page. Alternately a separate section could be made for comments on each street. --SPUI (talk) 23:37, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I'm all for merging for streets when possible and when there's a good place to merge and redirect to. Mott Street, for example, is a well known street in Manhattan, but it might as well be a redirect to Chinatown, Manhattan. I don't see the point in even a redirect for many streets, as the vast, vast majority of streets in the world aren't encyclopedic. What criteria one has to meet to be an article, or even a redirect, is what we really need to establish. -R. fiend 19:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I say merge, any street's notability will derive from the uses the people and companies of the city put it to. Unless the street is notable on it's own, for reasons of construction or compisition (or whatever) maybe then. Wacker Drive (a multi-level street) is an example, and even it could be part of the Chicago article. BigFatDave 01:31, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Useless outside the U.S and completely unnecessary in any case. There is no minimum size for an article. Dumping content into big pits is not a worthwhile activity. Oliver Chettle 04:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My suggestion is that the information should be included in the appropriate city article first. If information can not fit into the article, move out into a list type article, briefly describing the street. Although Wikipedia is not a road map, it doesn't hurt to have a list of minor streets into one article, rather than red linking them. Red linking should only occur to streets and roads are famous, or have cultural or historical significance. -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:20, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I think this is a good idea, however, looking at various VfD disputes recently, some people are ready to call almost any substanitally sized road "famous", "major", or "historical". Unfortuntely, it seems these need to be defined. -R. fiend 00:23, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Substantially sized roads are by definition major. --SPUI (talk) 02:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • What constitutes "substantially sized"? Is Grand River Avenue, the pre-interstate highway from Detroit to Grand Haven, Michigan substantial? It's about 200 miles long, but only two lanes in each direction. Is Eight Mile Road substantial? It's one of the major east-west roads in the Detroit metropolitan area, only about 25 miles long, but at its widest, it's five lanes in each direction. How about Twelve Mile Road? It's slightly smaller than Eight Mile, and doesn't have any cultural or historical significance. --Carnildo 03:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Anything from minor arterial on up in the hierarchy of roads. Possibly some major collectors. --SPUI (talk) 04:31, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • By historical or cultural significances, I mean like Hollywood and Vine. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As author of the Southwest Boulevard article cited at the top of this discussion, I am glad to see that Wikipedia is trying to develop a consistent policy to deal with this issue. Kudos to whoever started this discussion and all those participating.

First of all, whatever is decided here needs to be included in the texts new users typically see when starting articles, as I would have never started these "road-based" articles on Wikipedia to begin with. However, the Southwest Boulevard and other pages are not inappropriate for Wikipedia because of the notability issue. As I discuss on my user page, whether a topic is notable or important is a subjective value and goes against Wikipedia's objective philosophy. This is also the problem with the above suggestions involving distance or inclusion in travel or other guides. The aritcle was inappropriate for Wikipedia because of lack of sources, which no one pointed out in the VfD debates.

The real test of whether street articles should be deleted are already covered by the higher orders of what is in and out, not non-arguments like notability, fame, or whether the article is "encyclopedic". The real test is whether the individual article is necessary for a reader to gain an understanding on the topic in relation to the other topics in Wikipedia. Southwest Boulevard as its own article passes this test, because it is important to understanding the communities and culture of West Tulsa, just as Broadway is important in understanding Manhattan.

As an afterthought, I am also disappointed that no part of the Southwest Boulevard article was deemed important enough to be merged into the West Tulsa, Route 66, Tulsa or other articles. Deleting articles is meant to be a drastic step to get rid of the most obviously unwanted articles like fan pages, vanity, etc. and the guide to deletion suggests that when there is doubt or extend arguments, the page should not be deleted but edited.AboutWestTulsa 02:51, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the issue of how do we keep from having a VfD for every street in the world is best addressed by being more specific on the information we provide new users when they are curious about starting articles.

For instance, from Wikipedia:Your first article:

• Section: But please don’t create… SubSection: Personal essays or original research:
  • "…Do not write articles that present your own original theories, opinions, or insights." This should also include a statement not to create articles which do not cite sources and/or are unverifiable. Perhaps, this should also include something about sources must be more than atlas or statement that road exists.
• Section: And be careful about. SubSection: Local-interest articles
  • "…some will challenge them if they include nothing that shows how the place is special and different from tens of thousands of similar places." I, personally, like this test. It seems to include the content arguments I have made before about relativity to other articles and how even "minor" streets can be important to presenting knowledge about communities. I feel the Southwest Boulevard article passed this test as its historical and community significance makes it a special road.

Whatever consensus we reach, we should include in the above sections from WP:Your first article. AboutWestTulsa 19:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with a map/atlas source? How else would you find that, for example, US 17 goes through Green Cove Springs, Florida? (Theoretical example; there might in fact be a newspaper article about something on US 17 there.) I guess you could cite the road signs, which are official sources, and if necessary get a photo. --SPUI (talk) 20:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I suppose what type of atlas would be a consideration(it could contain lots of good info.), and an atlas would be a good source among others. The premise of this proposal is that an article on a road has to have something to say about the road other than its location, like uses (which should have their own article), historic significances (which should have their own articles), locations (which should have their own articles), etc. The information about the details that turn a stub saying such and such road exists into an article needs to be sourced. (Road stubs should not be readily deleted, but allowed for organic growth, and at most, merged into another article in after a long time there is no other info. on the road.)AboutWestTulsa 23:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Attempting to reach a "consensus" is pointless. It is an inherently vague area. Only a microfraction of users have participated in this debate. Let's just carry on using votes for deletion. Oliver Chettle 04:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some months ago a few articles about individual train stations were listed on vfd, and a consensus quickly developed that every single train station served by the MTA (New York City's public transportation system) is notable enough to have a short article. I would think that articles on the streets in New York are not any less valuable than the articles about the subway stations. Morris 17:25, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Agree I think that all but the most trivial street's (Nameless alley's, Unnamed residential subdivision streets, Service roads) are potentially encyclopedic. I would think that all major streets in a town of > 10,000 people are also probably encyclopedic. This is probably more a function of article quality though. Klonimus 06:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Petros Boulevard is a street in Novi, Michigan. It stretches approximately 200 yards from 11 Mile Road to Buckminster Drive, forming the northern access road to the Cedar Spring Estates subdivision. From the intersection with 11 Mile to the intersection with Copland Lane, it has one lane in each direction, with a grassy median dividing the two. Halfway along its length, Copland splits off at a "T" intersection to provide access to the western half of the subdivision. It provides access to twenty houses.

Google Map of the area

This geographical article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Is this the sort of article you're looking for? --Carnildo 07:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IMHO Geographic streetcruft that are inherently encyclopedic.

1. All major streets in any city of > 50,000 People.
2. All stops of any Subway/Light Rail system.
3. All Fire/Police stations
4. Public Work's facilities (Equipment yards, Storm Drain Pumping Stations etc)
5. All Major Public works (Dams, Sewage plants, Docks, Water treatment, Power stations, etc)
6. Municipal Garabage Disposal sites (Town Landfills, Incinertors, Recycling Depots etc)
7. Former Public Work's facilities (I.e Former Manufactured Gas Plants)
8. All Schools and educational facilites.
9. All public library branches.
10. Senior Centers
11. YMCA's/JCC's/Islamic Centers

• • With all due respect, aren't the above points describing an atlas, rather than an encyclopedia? Or should wikipedia be a combination encycolopeia and atlas? Morris 13:20, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I think in many of these cases, it would be better to merge into one larger article. For instance, a list of all the fire departments in an area, since there's not much that could be said about each. --SPUI (talk) 13:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with SPUI's contention. For example, Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles is definitely worthy of an article, but I doubt the same could be said of many other important streets like La Tijera Boulevard or James Wood Boulevard. --Coolcaesar 18:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia is the sum of all verifiable human knowledge, geography is a type of knowledge. I think GRider said it best.

With the ongoing contributions made by you and others like you, Wikipedia still has a gleam of hope. One day we just may be the sum of all human knowledge. Don't lose sight, don't lose hope. --GRider\^talk 19:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Klonimus 06:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Inspired by the BEEFSTEW guidelines, I suggest that we develop a similar checklist to determine which roads/streets are noteable. A quick first attempt would be

• Creating this list requires reconciliation with "Importance", as in Wikipedia:Importance. Importance says an article should not be deleted for being small or "... insufficiently important, famous or relevant…". AboutWestTulsa 07:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Section A: Urban/local roads - score at least 2-3 1. Is the road mentioned in 1a. A guidebook for the Country/State/Province/Region/Major city it is in? OR 1b. In a guidebook for a smaller area than above, other than for shopping or tourist accomodation?

• Is someone going to go to the store and find a guidebook? We're all rather lazy here. --SPUI (talk) 12:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• On-line guidebooks would be eay to verify. How about the guidebook in wikitravel? Vegaswikian 18:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Why place an emphasis on guidebooks over other sources which are equally or more valid, such as newspapers, magazines, government documents? Any street has the potential to add a dimension of understanding of a locale and has to be judged by content and relationship to other articles and by veracity of sources. Many guidebook articles are closer to sales ads or tabloids than articles from other sources. I recommend Wikipedia promotes authoritative sources over less authoritative. However, guidebook would be a good source for retaining a stub until more research is done, the rationale being "If it is in a guidebook than it has to have been in the papers", etc. AboutWestTulsa 07:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2. Does the road have any of the following on it? 2a. At least two mainline railway stations 2b. At least two metro/light rail stations that are not part of an interchange with a mainline station, OR at least one metro/light rail interchange with a mainline station AND at least one other metro/light rail station 2c. At least two museums that have their own article 2d. At least two seperate attractions mentioned in a guidebook as at 1a OR at least three separate attractiosn mentioned in a guidebook as at 1b.

• This is biased towards rail-oriented areas, in which roads are often less important. --SPUI (talk) 12:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Ignoring everything else about Las Vegas Blvd, the rail stations would not qualify it. Why, because the monorail line runs behind the buildings. Even though the guides frequently say it runs parallel the blvd. But it would qualify Paradise Road which does have two stops. Vegaswikian 18:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• If the general notion here is that roads which represent a part of the transportation system are important, i.e. connect people between rails and locations, I applaud it. I contend the application in this wording is too narrow. I think that all other forms of transportation must be considered in this clause as well. We must also include the possibility for roads to integrate into other systems of commerce, not just than railway or other forms of transportation, as well.AboutWestTulsa 07:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3. If no to question 2, does the article contain more information than could be resonably contained in a short section in the article on 3a. A mainline railway or metro/light rail station on the road? 3b. A major public transport interchange on the road (e.g. the hub for a tram system)? 3c. A museum located on the road 3d. An attraction that qualifies at 2d. (e.g a sports stadium, theatre, etc) 3e. A regular or one-off event held on the road (e.g. a carnival, parade, demonstration, etc) 3f. A film, song or book it plays a significan role in

• Does inactive count for the mainline station? Didn't the above say 2 museums with an article? On 3d, we have a sports stadium that is on a smaller road fed by a major street. Does that mean the smaller roads get listed, but the major one does not? About 3e and 3f, thanks you, that covers so many minor streets in Vegas. Does this also allow me to include the storm drain systems that play significant roles in a movie? And then three is significant, not objective. Vegaswikian 18:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I like this idea. The article must quote some source which says something about the road. This item underscores the lack of necessity for ItemA2: railways.AboutWestTulsa 07:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

4. Is a person from outside the region likely to have heard of the road? (this does not inlcude inferred references, e.g. becuase 5th Avenue, Old Kent Road and West Street are famous it is reasonable to infer that there is also a 4th Avenue, (New) Kent Road and East Street)

• So every main street is OK because someone ha heard of it? Once you know the name of the street it will seem very familiar no matter where it is. Vegaswikian 18:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• We often come to Wikipedia to hear about things we have never heard of, so I don’t see where popularity has any import on importance. Fame and notability have an inherent socio-economic bias and are therefore “non-arguments”. I advocate striking this element.AboutWestTulsa 07:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

5. Is notable, nationally or internationally, as a good or typical example of its type.

• An encyclopedia rich in articles which serve as examples for other articles is a great idea!AboutWestTulsa 07:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

6. The article is about a notable neighbourhood or other notable area that is named for the road, or which is deifined by the road.

• OK, that means the local street where the rich people live is noteable, right? How about the street where the movie stars live? Again, notable is somewhat subjective. Vegaswikian 18:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with Vegaswikian that whenever notable or notability shows up it weakens the argument. The idea, which I like, is that roads and community are interlinked and contribute to each other being individual articles. If you have a source that discusses a place worthy of an article, and the source (or others) discusses the road in connection with the place, then the road is important by correlation.AboutWestTulsa 07:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

7. Other than the above, does the article make a serious attempt to establish notability?

• "...a serious attempt to establish notability..." I take to mean author has cited sources.AboutWestTulsa 07:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Section B: National roads & Highways - score at least 1 1. Is the road a motorway/freeway/autobahn etc or major highway (e.g. M1 Motorway)

• Are state roads OK? County Roads? Vegaswikian 18:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2. Is the road a former motorway/freeway/autobahn etc or former major highway that 2a. is still (nearly) as notable as it was when it was current (e.g Route 66)? 2b. is now notable as a former road? 2c. retains its importance in the minds of the public, even though its status on the ground has decreased?

3. Is the road a significant historical route (e.g. a major roman road)

4. Other than the above, does the article make a serious attempt to establish notability?

My idea is that most national roads, and almost all motorways are notable - hence they just need to score 1 or more, whereas the significant majority of city/town/community/etc roads are not, and hence need to score 2 or 3 points on the tougher guidelines. Please feel free to improve these guidelines, they are only a first draft. Thryduulf 12:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's decent consensus that anything numbered at the state level is notable - see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Washington State Route 900. I'd add something about being an arterial or higher in the hierarchy of roads (I can find this information for some states) and being part of the National Highway System (in the U.S.; this is a system of roads that may be locally maintained but carry major traffic). Maybe something about its length. --SPUI (talk) 12:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The numbering at a state level seems good for US roads, but it isn't directly exportable to other countries. In the UK the numbering classification is very different - There are Motorways (M and Ax(M)), A roads which can be primary or non-primary and B roads at the national level. Most B roads wouldn't be notable (although I don't rule out that some can be), but A roads vary greatly - the single digit A-roads are notable, but I'm not certain all 2-digit ones are, and some three and four digit A-roads are more notable than those with shorter numbers - e.g. the A361 is definately notable and probably more so than the A39. see Great Britain road numbering scheme.

Longer roads are probably more notable than shorter ones, although some roads are notable for their being very short, e.g. A64(M) motorway.

The heirachy of roads sounds like a good idea, although it will be easier to define for some roads than others. The speed limit criteria is now no longer a good guide to roads in the UK, e.g. near where I live the A38 is a fairly standard width two lane single carraigeway road in a rural area. Even in the stretches between villages, it has a 40mph speed limit in some places. Almost all of the minor single track roads that lead onto it are subject to the national speed limit of 60mph. Thryduulf 13:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good start, no matter what I said above. Vegaswikian 18:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I once again agree with Vegaswikian, a good start and a wonderful job at building consensus, Thryduulf. I strongly urge abandoning the use of terms denoting notability in defining notability. Even though, I don’t see the need for Item A1 or A2, and take some exception to Item A4 as irrelvant, I have great respect for the scholasticism of Section B. Thank you for your contribution. I still wonder why we need to define what we mean by notability when lack of notability is not a valid reason to delete an article?AboutWestTulsa 07:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• This is nothing but an attempt to put a weapon in the hands of deletionists. It will be ignored by inclusionists. Oliver Chettle 04:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What's the purpose of having this discussion, if Admins are already deleting the articles we are discussing in trying to find a consensus on here?AboutWestTulsa 18:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For future reference. If the consensus here happens to change, that means the article can be re-created without the worry that it will be deleted if it meets the consensus guidelines established here. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I made Apopka-Vineland Road a while back. This doesn't even get into the type of development along the road; it strictly deals with the road itself. --SPUI (talk) 00:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. How about keep if any of the following:
   • road connects at least two UK cities (as designated cities by Royal charter or by possessing a Cathedral)
   • road is designated state highway or equivalent in its country
   • road is off mainland and is a major route on its island
   • road has historical significance (path of former Roman road, etc, connected with historical event, etc, or other historical significance--once used by pilgrims, for instance)
2. I don't see the point in actually deleting all mention of a given road from Wikipedia simply because it doesn't merit an article of its own; surely we can all agree that road articles where not kept as articles should be redirected to a central article into which relevant data should be merged in a list form.

How much of the problem is caused by the fact that this is an encylopedia? If this type of information was in an Atlas, would the problem go away? Vegaswikian 16:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]