Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Street (Toronto) (2nd nomination)
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 keep. Davewild (talk) 10:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- John Street (Toronto) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Speedy redirect to List of roads in Toronto#John Street. This was merged by consensus not even a month ago. SimonP has decided to recreate it, rather than adding this slight bit of new infomation to the redirect target, where it easily fits. Not a notable road and doesn't deserve its own article, as was determined a few days ago; it travels a few city blocks and is classified as a local street by the city. The street itself has no claim to fame, it just has important places at major intersection with other actually notable roads (Front/King/Queen). Important places on a road don't in themselves make the road notable. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - Per nom. Dough4872 18:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep, close, and TROUT- What part of "this is not Articles for Redirect was unclear? Umbralcorax (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Learn wikipedia policy. This is a venue to discuss articles. They don't have to be nominated for deletion to be brought here. Talk pages of many articles are unwatched. When you've been here a little longer and know the rules, you can apply to be an admin and then you can perform the unprecedented closure you did last night. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In all honesty, I think Articles for Deletion needs to be changed to Articles for Discussion, similar to RFD, TFD, etc. With this change, any deletions, proposed mergers, or requested moves can be discussed at this venue rather than on article talk pages. Dough4872 20:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do know wikipedia policy, thank you. There's one called WP:BEFORE, which says "If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider turning the page into a useful redirect to an existing article – something you can do yourself without opening an AfD case". All you're doing in opening these afd's is wasting everyone's time. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This was already done. Every single one that has been nominated here in the past few days was recreated with content that duplicates what is in the redirect target (or adds a fact or two to it at best). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So in other words, there was consensus to actually perform the redirect, so when someone undid your move, you brought it here make a POINT. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ...No...
- The article was listed for deletion. Consensus was to merge (see first AfD). This action was performed by User:Spartaz on January 16.[1]. SimonP recreated it on February 5, adding an infobox and a table with various buildings along the road.[2], but otherwise changing the prose very little. It was quickly nominated with CSD G4 by myself as a recreation of material from a recent AfD. An admin declined this request,[3] with the summary of "As much as this feels like an obvious G4, I think an AfD would calm everyne's nerves in thr long term". So I did exactly that. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So in other words, there was consensus to actually perform the redirect, so when someone undid your move, you brought it here make a POINT. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This was already done. Every single one that has been nominated here in the past few days was recreated with content that duplicates what is in the redirect target (or adds a fact or two to it at best). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do know wikipedia policy, thank you. There's one called WP:BEFORE, which says "If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider turning the page into a useful redirect to an existing article – something you can do yourself without opening an AfD case". All you're doing in opening these afd's is wasting everyone's time. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Major Toronto street and there's far too much topic-specific content to merge into the already far too large "parent" article. Very in-depth coverage demonstrating passing WP:GNG. [4] --Oakshade (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Splitting the potential target article is a completely seperate issue that has no bearing on this discussion. One source does not make a topic notable, WP:GNG requires multiple independent sources. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG does not require multiple sources (it says multiple sources are generally expected, not required). What's important about sources establishing notability is the depth of the coverage and that one cited is very in-depth. Here's another government one.[5] Oh, and here's another from the National Post. [6] And another from the Toronto Star. [7] So even under your criteria, this topic easily passes WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So why don't you take all these great sources and actually make an article with them? Will either you or SimonP stick around after these afd's close to continue to improve all of these sub-par street articles using the sources you are presenting here, or will you run off to "save" whatever other roads are being nominated for deletion? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess you've shifted your position that from it doesn't pass WP:GNG to "every article must be very long incorporating every word ever written about its topic from every source and if that's not done immediately, the article must be deleted." That's just silly and childish and not worth responding to.--Oakshade (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, every article that isn't long enough to merit seperation from a list of very similar articles (other roads in Toronto) should be merged until its big enough to be its own article. Otherwise they sit as permenant stubs for years without anything being done to them... that is of course until someone comes along with a hot poker. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Now your argument has shifted yet again to "it's too small." First of all, there are no WP:TOOSMALL disqualifying guidelines in Wikipedia. That's what stub notices are for. Secondly, it's a already beyond stub status and too large to merge into another one. Thirdly, it easily passes WP:GNG. You're fighting a losing battle here. --Oakshade (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've noticed. Crappy articles rejoice. Like I said, I'm sure once these AfD's are done that these articles will rot for another few years without a single reference being added to them. Hopefully one day opinions will change. We should go around making placeholders for other topics that could potentially have a good article. As long as they pass GNG it doesn't matter how good or bad the article is, right? When this nomination was made, the article was more than small enough to be merged until the time came that someone made it like it is now. Of course it is only when the threat of the article going away comes around that any work is actually done on it by the people that want to keep it so badly. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Now your argument has shifted yet again to "it's too small." First of all, there are no WP:TOOSMALL disqualifying guidelines in Wikipedia. That's what stub notices are for. Secondly, it's a already beyond stub status and too large to merge into another one. Thirdly, it easily passes WP:GNG. You're fighting a losing battle here. --Oakshade (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, every article that isn't long enough to merit seperation from a list of very similar articles (other roads in Toronto) should be merged until its big enough to be its own article. Otherwise they sit as permenant stubs for years without anything being done to them... that is of course until someone comes along with a hot poker. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess you've shifted your position that from it doesn't pass WP:GNG to "every article must be very long incorporating every word ever written about its topic from every source and if that's not done immediately, the article must be deleted." That's just silly and childish and not worth responding to.--Oakshade (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So why don't you take all these great sources and actually make an article with them? Will either you or SimonP stick around after these afd's close to continue to improve all of these sub-par street articles using the sources you are presenting here, or will you run off to "save" whatever other roads are being nominated for deletion? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG does not require multiple sources (it says multiple sources are generally expected, not required). What's important about sources establishing notability is the depth of the coverage and that one cited is very in-depth. Here's another government one.[5] Oh, and here's another from the National Post. [6] And another from the Toronto Star. [7] So even under your criteria, this topic easily passes WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Splitting the potential target article is a completely seperate issue that has no bearing on this discussion. One source does not make a topic notable, WP:GNG requires multiple independent sources. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious keep per Oakshade. There are more than enough references available to satisfy WP:GNG. freshacconci talktalk 02:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It didn't take me much work to find a bunch of sources for this article. I'm sure with a bit more time a lot else could be found. - SimonP (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Original merge was correct, but there's clearly enough new content and coverage to justify retention now. Significant coverage in at least three reliable sources makes this road easily notable under WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep per WP:SK #1: fails to advance an argument for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you fucking blind?
- Speedy redirect to List of roads in Toronto#John Street. This was merged by consensus not even a month ago. SimonP has decided to recreate it, rather than adding this slight bit of new infomation to the redirect target, where it easily fits. Not a notable road and doesn't deserve its own article, as was determined a few days ago; it travels a few city blocks and is classified as a local street by the city. The street itself has no claim to fame, it just has important places at major intersection with other actually notable roads (Front/King/Queen). Important places on a road don't in themselves make the road notable.
- Use common fucking sense. That is a reason and an argument. Your vote is useless. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This an unacceptable personal attack and only succeeds in diminishing Floydian before the WP community, whatever one thinks of Colonel Wardens' !vote. I've placed a warning on his User Talk page, for what it's worth, and asked him to remove this and apologize. Geez, it's a deletion discussion about a street, for heaven's sake. Let's act like adults. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no personal attack. I will continue to use profane language as I please, there is no rule against that (or can you provide to the contrary?). Colonel is spamming every nomination with the same inapplicable crap, and it is simply unacceptable. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Wikipedia:Civility. Please read it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Shawn in Montreal beat me to it, but the line you may want to pay particularly close attention to is this: "A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough: for instance, extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person can all result in blocks without consideration of a pattern." freshacconci talktalk 01:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Civility only refers to attacking another member, not to general use of profane language. In both cases, my use of "fucking" was as a modifier / adjective that expressed frustration. I didn't call Colonel a fuck, or a fuck up, nor assert that they were fucked; I asked if they were blind (perhaps less than civil, but if we're supposed to act like adults here, then we should have skin thicker than a baby), and then stated "Use common sense". Mass stamping of AfD's with speedy keep based on a personal interpretation of WP:SK is far more disruptive than two swear words. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, please. Cut the semantics and the drama. "Are you fucking blind?"; "Use common fucking sense"; "Your vote is useless". Those are attacks, with profanity, directed at one editor. freshacconci talktalk 02:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll repeat myself: if we're supposed to act like adults here, then we should have skin thicker than a baby. This was not intended as a personal insult at colonel, but as an expression of my frustration at their unconstructive comments; that is all there is to it. Any continued drama beyond this point is the doing of those initiating it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly, act like an adult, admit you're in the wrong and apologize. You violated Wikipedia policy. It's clear and simple and no amount of redirection is going to alter that. You're frustrated that this AfD isn't going like you planned. Your comments on this page, not just to Colonel Warden, but to others you disagree with show a great deal of immaturity. freshacconci talktalk 02:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Floydian, your behavior in both this attempted mass deletion effort and your lack of civility has only served as a disruption to editors and exposing your poor judgment. I don't know if you're embarrassed, angry or outright humiliated that these AfDs aren't going your way, but that is absolutely no excuse for that kind of language you have demonstrated here as well as your own talk page. Presuming you are over 18 years old (correct me if I'm wrong on this), as the previous user said, start acting like an adult. --Oakshade (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll repeat myself: if we're supposed to act like adults here, then we should have skin thicker than a baby. This was not intended as a personal insult at colonel, but as an expression of my frustration at their unconstructive comments; that is all there is to it. Any continued drama beyond this point is the doing of those initiating it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, please. Cut the semantics and the drama. "Are you fucking blind?"; "Use common fucking sense"; "Your vote is useless". Those are attacks, with profanity, directed at one editor. freshacconci talktalk 02:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Civility only refers to attacking another member, not to general use of profane language. In both cases, my use of "fucking" was as a modifier / adjective that expressed frustration. I didn't call Colonel a fuck, or a fuck up, nor assert that they were fucked; I asked if they were blind (perhaps less than civil, but if we're supposed to act like adults here, then we should have skin thicker than a baby), and then stated "Use common sense". Mass stamping of AfD's with speedy keep based on a personal interpretation of WP:SK is far more disruptive than two swear words. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Shawn in Montreal beat me to it, but the line you may want to pay particularly close attention to is this: "A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough: for instance, extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person can all result in blocks without consideration of a pattern." freshacconci talktalk 01:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Wikipedia:Civility. Please read it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no personal attack. I will continue to use profane language as I please, there is no rule against that (or can you provide to the contrary?). Colonel is spamming every nomination with the same inapplicable crap, and it is simply unacceptable. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you fucking blind?
- Oh, and Keep, too. We now have enough refs indicating notability for John Street, which appears to be a main axis in TO's Entertainment District. Clearly notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2011 (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.