Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Driveway

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 05:53, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Driveway

Not encyclopaedic, and a wiktionary entry already exists. Fawcett5 02:55, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep real things. Could be expanded to mention materials used, and why people put rocks along the sides. Kappa 03:10, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep driveways can be expanded. Mgm|^(talk) 09:33, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with street to avoid redundancies. Radiant_* 10:05, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A driveway is not a street. Wincoote 13:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. --GRider\^talk 18:35, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm going to assume you meant 'concrete growth' since driveways aren't particularly organic. Radiant_* 12:46, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable architectural feature. Capitalistroadster 20:30, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete What's the point of having a policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary when we keep dictionary entries? This entry is nothing more than a definition of a driveway. Is someone going to take the time to research and write about the history of driveways? Is someone going to comment on the notable driveways of the past? Does someone know who the inventor of the driveway is? Will we solve the age old question of why we drive in a parkway and park in a driveway? If someone gets passionate about the driveway to the extent that they want to write an encyclopedia entry on the topic they can always recreate it when the time comes. As it stands now it warrants only deletion. Being a real thing does not an encyclopedia entry make. Kevin Rector 20:48, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • The point of the "not a dictionary" policy is to get rid of things like adjectives and phrases which are inherently non-encyclopedic, in contrast to real things which are the opposite. Kappa 02:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's an architectural feature, why not keep it? Ganymead 02:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Ganymead. 212.50.160.44 20:52, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Concur w/ Kevin Rector, Delete. Lacrimosus 22:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. N-Man 23:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.