Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C. (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:00, 30 January 2006 editTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 editsm →[]]← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:13, 30 March 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(25 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
⚫ ===]]===
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result of the debate was speedy keep. See ]. -] 05:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
: Clarification: This nomination was closed early because there was already an on-going discussion at ]. The renomination should not have been created until that discussion had a chance to conclude. This prevents confusing and circular discussions. It also prevents any appreance of impropriety through "forum-shopping". ] <small>]</small> 02:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
:: As nominator I want to record the fact that I strongly dissent from any implication that an AfD discussion, which is based on consensus, can be prevented from proceeding because there is a prior discussion on DRV, which is not consensus-based. I see no reason why this nomination should not be re-opened by anyone wishing to record their opinion of whether this article should be deleted, but I will not edit war. --]|] 09:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

⚫ ===]===
This article was listed previously. This article was listed previously.


Line 7: Line 16:


* Looks like a perfectly good article to me. The existence, in the one full part of the United States that does not have statehood, and moreover the one devoted wholly to government of the United States, of streets (mostly avenues) named after all fifty states of the Union, is no coincidence, and a list of those streets is of encyclopedic value. It is of perhaps as much encyclopedic value as the list of streets of Atlentic City that appear in the US monopoly board, or lists of streets in London that appear in the British version. That is to say: not much, but the net value is positive and the article is unlikely to pose any great maintenance problems. --]|] 02:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC) * Looks like a perfectly good article to me. The existence, in the one full part of the United States that does not have statehood, and moreover the one devoted wholly to government of the United States, of streets (mostly avenues) named after all fifty states of the Union, is no coincidence, and a list of those streets is of encyclopedic value. It is of perhaps as much encyclopedic value as the list of streets of Atlentic City that appear in the US monopoly board, or lists of streets in London that appear in the British version. That is to say: not much, but the net value is positive and the article is unlikely to pose any great maintenance problems. --]|] 02:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep'''. Agree with Tony Sidaway. The article has encyclopedic value, is completely verifable, and is more expandable than a category is. The content is certainly more encyclopedic than other lists we've deemed notable enough for inclusion. —] 03:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Provides more than a category can, as it includes redlinks, and can include redirects (like if Ohio Drive were to redirect to the park it's contained in). Provides more than a redirect to ] can, as it links to the roads. Provides more than ] can, as it pulls out the ones specifically named after states - because, you know, not everyone lives in the U.S. or has the names of the states memorized. (I have split them off into a subcategory, but I don't have high hopes for its survival.) Common sense, dudes. This does more good than the zero harm in keeping it. --] (] - <small>]</small>) 03:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' useful list --] ] 03:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', I stand by the opinion I expressed the first time around. - ] 03:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', but maybe rename it to ], so as to include Ohio and California, instead of just having them seem oddly out of place. ] 03:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Notable and well organised information. ] 04:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''''Keep, and enhance''''' While it is mildly problematic that there are ''so'' many redlinks currently, this only means that this worthwhile list regarding state-named roadways in the U.S. capital (and ancillary topics of DC being a ]) should be enhanced. For instance, it'd be great if a map was devised to highlight all of these roadways. Furthermore, each entry should be accompanied by approximate locations in DC and/or all of them should be categorised/sectioned according to location (e.g., NE, Foggy Bottom, etc.) As well, I'd actually suggest '''''renaming''''' it to '']'' (lower case ], since many roadways are named Avenue, Road, Street, et al.). ] | ] | 05:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per WP:NOT, etc. Hardly encyclopedic, atomic level detail on streets doesn't even qualify as "almanac style entry". Simple verifiablility isn't the hurdle for inclusion, we're an encyclopedia, not Everything 2. While we're at it, censure Tony Sidaway for bad-faith venue shopping. - ]]] 05:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
* Would someone please add this to ] again, please? Someone keeps removing it but I don't like to edit war. --]|] 05:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
*This has been a strange debate. I have no strong feelings about the article (other than my original vote of '''delete''' as non-notable listcruft) but I note tensions run high in others (both supporting and not). I don't know why this AfD was closed early as there was no consensus for speedy keep.
** The debate closure note references ]. I think the intent is to consolidate the discussion. -- ] 17:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>

Latest revision as of 21:13, 30 March 2022

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 of the debate was speedy keep. See WP:DRV. -R. fiend 05:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: This nomination was closed early because there was already an on-going discussion at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. The renomination should not have been created until that discussion had a chance to conclude. This prevents confusing and circular discussions. It also prevents any appreance of impropriety through "forum-shopping". Rossami (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
As nominator I want to record the fact that I strongly dissent from any implication that an AfD discussion, which is based on consensus, can be prevented from proceeding because there is a prior discussion on DRV, which is not consensus-based. I see no reason why this nomination should not be re-opened by anyone wishing to record their opinion of whether this article should be deleted, but I will not edit war. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C.

This article was listed previously.

The result was no consensus, and as is normal for such a result the article was kept. Someone has queried this result on the basis that he thinks the discussion favored deletion, and he has taken the unusual step of going to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review to try to get it deleted. Since Deletion Review is one of our few forums that are not consensus-based, I think it's probably fairer if the article is relisted for discussion in this consensus-based forum. I recommend, I admit rather lukewarmly, a keep, and present my arguments below. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Looks like a perfectly good article to me. The existence, in the one full part of the United States that does not have statehood, and moreover the one devoted wholly to government of the United States, of streets (mostly avenues) named after all fifty states of the Union, is no coincidence, and a list of those streets is of encyclopedic value. It is of perhaps as much encyclopedic value as the list of streets of Atlentic City that appear in the US monopoly board, or lists of streets in London that appear in the British version. That is to say: not much, but the net value is positive and the article is unlikely to pose any great maintenance problems. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with Tony Sidaway. The article has encyclopedic value, is completely verifable, and is more expandable than a category is. The content is certainly more encyclopedic than other lists we've deemed notable enough for inclusion. —Cleared as filed. 03:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Provides more than a category can, as it includes redlinks, and can include redirects (like if Ohio Drive were to redirect to the park it's contained in). Provides more than a redirect to U.S. state can, as it links to the roads. Provides more than Category:Streets in Washington, D.C. can, as it pulls out the ones specifically named after states - because, you know, not everyone lives in the U.S. or has the names of the states memorized. (I have split them off into a subcategory, but I don't have high hopes for its survival.) Common sense, dudes. This does more good than the zero harm in keeping it. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep useful list --Jaranda 03:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I stand by the opinion I expressed the first time around. - SimonP 03:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but maybe rename it to List of state-named Roads (or Streets) in Washington, D.C., so as to include Ohio and California, instead of just having them seem oddly out of place. Rory096 03:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable and well organised information. Golfcam 04:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, and enhance While it is mildly problematic that there are so many redlinks currently, this only means that this worthwhile list regarding state-named roadways in the U.S. capital (and ancillary topics of DC being a planned city) should be enhanced. For instance, it'd be great if a map was devised to highlight all of these roadways. Furthermore, each entry should be accompanied by approximate locations in DC and/or all of them should be categorised/sectioned according to location (e.g., NE, Foggy Bottom, etc.) As well, I'd actually suggest renaming it to List of state-named roadways in Washington, D.C. (lower case r, since many roadways are named Avenue, Road, Street, et al.). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT, etc. Hardly encyclopedic, atomic level detail on streets doesn't even qualify as "almanac style entry". Simple verifiablility isn't the hurdle for inclusion, we're an encyclopedia, not Everything 2. While we're at it, censure Tony Sidaway for bad-faith venue shopping. - brenneman 05:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Would someone please add this to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 30 again, please? Someone keeps removing it but I don't like to edit war. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This has been a strange debate. I have no strong feelings about the article (other than my original vote of delete as non-notable listcruft) but I note tensions run high in others (both supporting and not). I don't know why this AfD was closed early as there was no consensus for speedy keep.
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.