Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morningside Avenue (Toronto)

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morningside Avenue (Toronto)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to List of roads in Toronto#Morningside Avenue. No claim to notability; a standard suburban arterial road, of which there are literally a thousand of in the Toronto area; no traceable history to its construction of name. Barely even qualifies as a major road, let alone a notable one; no reason to keep as a standalone article. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Important Note - Less than a week ago, List of roads in Toronto was a simple list with multiple wikilinks to articles of streets included in the list. It was only less than 7 KB long.
Here is what it looked like on February 3, 2011.
On February 3, the nom then took various contents from all of those articles and placed them in this list article and removed most of the wikilinks, including to Morningside Avenue (Toronto).[1] That article is now over 109 kb, way too long per WP:SIZERULE. I suppose this was all part of an effort to delete most Toronto street articles and just have summaries in this new parent one and add content from his own userspace for streets that had no articles and this AfD is an extension of that effort.--Oakshade (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It took me about 15 minutes to find three different media sources talking about this road. With only a bit of research a lot more well referenced content could be added. Easily meets WP:GNG. - SimonP (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it meets GNG doesn't mean it needs to be a standalone article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge per nom. Imzadi 1979 → 17:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SK — the nomination fails to advance an argument for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To improve the structure of information regarding roads in Toronto to be on one or two articles instead of sprawled across many many many more. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do you "improve the structure of information" by deleting over 90% of it? That doesn't make any sense. Wikipedia Articles exists for those who actually read them, not those who want them as short and pointless as possible. Dream Focus 11:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because we're deleting pages here, not content. The content will not only be redirected and added to another article, which contains other streets in Toronto, but it will be preserved in the history of this article, should one day some editor with the time and investment be able to write an article worthy of being independent. Some streets in Toronto already meet this criteria, but Morningside Avenue in my opinion is the furthest from those. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. However many times I look at this, the deletion rationale still doesn't make sense to me. The only notability guideline governing roads is the GNG, which this would appear to meet through the sources already given. No verifiability issues, enough content to write a reasonable article, no particular reason to invoke IAR... Alzarian16 (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Per nom. Dough 48 72 21:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Major Toronto street that, as pointed out above, easily passes WP:GNG. Too much topic-specific content to place into an already too long article that should be just a list anyway (see "Important Note" above). --Oakshade (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The article in no way explains why the road has any notability, and there's no reason not to list it on the page the nominator suggested instead. The argument that this article is needed because the list violates WP:SIZERULE is flawed; lists can be split into smaller groups, especially in one where there are easy geographical splits that can be made.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clssic straw man argument. Nobody is arguing "keep" because the nom's proposed target article violates WP:SIZERULE, but because it passes WP:GNG and there's too much topic-specific content to be merged into another article.--Oakshade (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So is the "its got enough written about it so it must deserve its own independent article" argument. Let's review the article and see what is topic-specific, as you say:

Morningside Avenue is a north-south street in Toronto, Ontario, Canada and it is located in the district of Scarborough.

Fair enough... But a list could point this out as well

The street starts at Guildwood Parkway, near Lake Ontario to the south, and travels along the former Lot 10 line northwards through the Highland Creek valley, to Finch Avenue.

This relates to Guildwood Parkway and Finch Avenue as well, also roads in Scarborough that share a major junction at opposite ends of Morningside. Regardless, these are the terminii, and would also easily fit in a list

North of the valley, where the street once ended, it was named "Littles Road" after an early family in the area.

Source? Or is this original research? The etimologies of all the roads is in the big list.

Following the development of the Malvern area, Littles Road was renamed into this community.

Renamed into this community? I guess we mean renamed in this community. When, by whom, and source? Unsourced and unverifiable information should be deleted, not left to sit on the chance that a citation may turn up one day. Source your additions to the encyclopedia; there is disclaimer to this effect at the bottom of the editing window.

There are plans to extend through the Brookside and Morningside Heights neighbourhoods to Steeles Avenue and beyond as the Box Grove Bypass. These plans have since been cancelled due to concerns that the extension cuts through sensitive area of Rouge Park.[1][2]

Some real information now!.. Except... are there plans, or have they been cancelled? In addition to the terminus and length, this piece of information is easily placed in the list article, without making that particular entry hefty. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The low 3.7 m (12.1 ft), narrow, one-lane railroad underpass at Finch Avenue, dating back to when it was a rural road, was replaced in 2009, allowing 4 lanes of traffic to pass below uninterrupted.[3]

When I added this, it was the first sourced piece of information in the 5 year old article. This also applies to Finch Avenue and to the Malvern article, so its not topic-specific.

A second Morningside Avenue exists in Toronto, in the formerly independent town of Swansea. It is a minor residential road which runs from a cul-de-sac west of the South Kingsway in the west to Ellis Park Road in the east, on the shore of Grenadier Pond.

In other words, niether notable nor noteworthy?
What's left is a list of places with a Morningside Avenue address. Not a claim to notability. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^confess 00:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable arterial road. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While there is a fair amount of referenced material on the page now, it amounts to little more than a geographical description. Just because information exists does not mean it should be compiled in its own article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does it mean it should not. You not liking it is not a valid reason to delete something. Dream Focus 11:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one ever said either of those.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability has been established, so leave it be. Nothing gained by destroying all or the vast majority of it. Dream Focus 11:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable arterial road, and too much detail to merge elsewhere.--DThomsen8 (talk) 03:46, 7 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.