Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airport Road (Ontario)

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 delete. Per longterm practice, a blog entry isn't enough for notability, particularly for something as common as a road. Sandstein 12:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Airport Road (Ontario)

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

Article about a municipal arterial road, referenced entirely to Google Maps and to a non-notable roadgeek's personal blog with no evidence of reliable source coverage about the road in real media shown at all. This serves mainly as a description of the road's physical characteristics, with only trivial bits of history like name changes -- however, our notability standards for roads require them to have noteworthy political, historical or social context before they qualify for standalone articles, but there's nothing resembling that standard present here. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Airport Road is more than just a regular municipal road. It runs through two jurisdictions and functions as an intercity highway; an unusual characteristic that makes it noteworthy. Also, why is a roadgeek blog automatically considered unreliable? The blog is backed up by photos. And even "official" sources can be wrong. --_{User:Transportfan70}

Crossing over a municipal boundary is not, in and of itself, a claim of notability for a street. And reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes are published by media organizations, not by one person on a blogging platform — on a blog, I can claim absolutely anything whether it's true or not and nobody has the power or the fact-checking facilities to stop me. Reliable sources are real media outlets with established editorial standards and chains of accountability, not blogs — and yes, real media can be wrong about stuff on occasion too, but they have records of publishing corrections when they mess up (which bloggers don't), and a journalist for a real media outlet can get fired if they make a big enough mistake (which a blogger can't). Bearcat (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 13:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom – While the blog's author is a published author, this work is simply an observation he's made about an area in his hometown. The one notable detail about it possibly being one of the longest known streets in the world is a claim or observation only made by him, as far as I can tell. The blog could possibly pass as a reliable source, but generally for an article's notability, you should really have more than one source. Google Maps is not a sufficient complement. Transportfan70, seeing that you spent a lot of time on this, I'd suggest backing up your work should you ever discover that Airport Road has gained additional coverage in reliable sources. If that ever happens, we can revisit the need to have a standalone article on the topic. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the article is adequately referenced. As I mentioned earlier, the blog is backed up by photos—and written by a published author, as you stated—and and Google Maps doesn't lie about road lengths. If Google Maps isn't a reliable source, then I don't know what is! Transportfan70 (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps keep the article. I added a historical map for reference and deleted information not in photosTransportfan70 (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All due respect, Google Maps (or any map for that matter) will show you factual data, but it does not support a claim about being the longest, continuous street in the world. A reliable source that tracks such claims (Guinness comes to mind) would be preferred as the main citation of such a claim. They've performed the research to verify that there isn't a longer one out there. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the article or the blog mention that Airport Rd. is the longest street in the world? The blog mentioning it was a possible candidate only.Transportfan70 (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where is there any properly sourced evidence that it has any credible claim to being considered the longest (or one of the longest) streets in the world? That designation was once ascribed to Yonge Street in Toronto, on the basis that it was part of Ontario Highway 11 and thus technically extended all the way to Rainy River, but that's been taken away and the only road-length record Guinness now confers is "longest motorable road" to the Pan-American Highway. We can't do original research here, but that doesn't mean citing a blogger's unverified original research is somehow OK just because it's not coming from us. Bearcat (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - complete lack of reliable sources and the disambiguator term makes it inapplicable to redirect to the airport. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:58, 24 July 2017 (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.