Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arden Valley Road

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. Discussion on merge can take place on the articles talk. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arden Valley Road

Road simply is not notable. It exists within Harriman State Park that minimal traffic travels everyday. Maybe you can briefly mention it on the Harriman State Park page, but that I don't think is necessary. GoHuskies9904 (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has a well referenced history and pictures. It does seem a little strange that someone put so much work into making such a good article about such a mundane road. I wouldn't want to delete it, although I wish there was another place to put it other than Wikipedia. Habanero-tan (talk) 04:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - It is a notable state park route that is referenced by in the NYSDOT logs. Plus, its a quality article that had a lot of hard work put into it. It is far from a stub or anything like that. -Airtuna08 (talk) 06:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Meets WP:N, contains sources, is very nearly rated as "B" class. It's a quality, well-written article. PeterSymonds | talk 09:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the notability criteria as it contains good sources. <irrelevant>It is also a good article</irrelevant>. Atyndall93 | talk 10:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I know this road ;). That aside, it's a major park thoroughfare and tied with the history of the region Arden Hill Hospital, etc., hiking in the region as well as the reasons above _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Harriman State Park – Marginal notability, because from what I see, there's one source that's not just a map. A lot of the above comments are tending towards WP:EFFORT and WP:PRETTY, neither of which are particularly compelling reasons to keep. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comentario I agree, a page being considered pretty or well written aren't good reasons to keep something. I can make a good article on my cat, but should it stay because I have pretty pictures and some fancy wording. The road is barely notable, so should be deleted. In fact, there are no reassurance shields in the pictures on the page. So drivers don't even know they are on Arden Valley Road. Also, from my understanding, there are more of these types of roads within Harriman Park. How come one of a group of hidden roads was put into an article? If one was going to be done, it should make sense to have them all. I don't see this page's purpose. Other than it being "pretty", which it is, but again, that shouldn't fly as shown in the WP articles from Bellhalla above.-GoHuskies9904 (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - As the original writer of the article, I feel it meets criteria to stay, its probably heading to GA soon anyway.^Mitch 32 ^contribs 10:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite notable thoroughfare, well-sourced, no reason to delete. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge. Outright deletion is probably over-the-top. This article is well-written, but I'm not entirely sure of its notability independent of the park. Consider a merge to the article on the park. However, I wouldn't be too terribly perturbed if this article was kept on its own. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - probably has historic value within the park, given that it was built in 1930. (I don't know if the Civilian Conservation Corps worked on this or not, but it's plausible.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:05, 8 May 2008 (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.