Talk:Bronson Avenue (Ottawa)

message: Text copied from WP:RM (link) —  AjaxSmack  21:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Previous discussion

message: :Feel state your position on the renaming proposal including a preferred title by beginning a new line in one of the sections below with #Support or #Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support.  All of the targets currently redirect to the articles in question.  No other articles with these titles currently exist and unless there is an alternative meaning that is highly notable but has been heretofore overlooked, preemptive disambiguation is not needed. —  AjaxSmack  21:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: The issue that keeps coming up is how we measure the wikipediability of a road. By wikipediability I mean that a topic can be:
* Unwikipediable or W-negative. That means that we don't want an article on it at all, or even a redirect.
* Weakly wikipediable or W-neutral. And this covers a multitude of possibilities, including ambiguous names and areas better covered by a section merged into a larger article.
* Strongly wikipediable or W-positive. That means that we do want an article on the topic, and it's the primary (or only) usage of the term, so the article belongs at the the undisambiguated name.
Question 1: Are there any existing policies or guidelines to help us in determining the wikipediability of a road? Wikilinks please.
Question 2: Are these existing policies and guidelines adequate? What should they say that they don't?
Google search obviously has its drawbacks, see above. Google maps may not be a lot better, judging by the inability of the searches above to discover even the existence of a major Sydney arterial road (Richmond Road) even after its importance had been hinted at.
It would be good to avoid a repeat of the schools articles fiasco of past years. For those who missed it, many articles on schools, particularly secondary schools, were AfDd (we called it VfD in those days) and deleted in Wikipedia's early years, with lots of repetitive, lengthy and passionate discussion. Most if not all of these articles have been recreated as the rule has progressively relaxed. 
The same thing could easily happen for roads. Let's not. Andrewa (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This entire argument goes to notability. By all means, nominate for deletion if any roads are "unwikipediable" but as long as the articles exist, this has nothing to do with article naming conventions. Station1 (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In good time, no doubt AfDs will take place as needed. But I don't think it's good use of anyone's time and energy to do it right now. First, I'd like other opinions on the existing policies and guidelines, and how they might apply. Andrewa (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Geography is also interesting in this regard: City streets are contested, but minor streets are not generally acceptable. Most numbered roadways are acceptable, but should only be created if they can be described beyond the route itself. Major, unnumbered streets and roads beyond the level of a side street or neighborhood roadway may be created, but are not guaranteed to remain, as outcomes have varied. An article that explains the social, cultural, historical or political context of a road in depth is more likely to survive AFD than one which merely describes the road's physical characteristics. Andrewa (talk) 01:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipediability