Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 370

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania Route 370

[edit]
Pennsylvania Route 370 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Road that doesn't demonstrate notability. All references are to maps, and two-thirds of the references are to the Pennsylvania Department of Highway, a self-published source that doesn't demonstrate notability. Breaking down the notability guideline as it pertains to this article:

  • "Reliable": Not a problem.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So can anyone show me how this actually passes WP:N? Albacore (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The state highway systems are all notable. For Michigan, there's Michigan State Trunkline Highway System, for Pennsylvania there's currently List of numbered highways in Pennsylvania, and nationally there is Interstate Highway System and United States Numbered Highway System. To provide systematic coverage of the level required of a gazetteer, sub articles are needed per WP:SIZE. So the highway system gets sublists that have tables listing all of the state highways in a state. To continue the necessary systematic coverage needed, each highway gets its own article, again per WP:SIZE. Imzadi 1979 → 01:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:5P. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. One of the functions of a gazetteer is to included significant roads; roads designated state highways are significant. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep As wikipedia does cover roads (I challenge the nominator to debate this point, but would prefer they did not), one of the most, the not THE most substantial indicators of a "notable road" is the selection of that road by a provincial or state government for inclusion in their numbered road network. These roads are given more funding, have higher design standards and traffic is funnelled towards them as they are almost always the most significant/major roads in the areas they travel through. They are the roads tourists are directed along. This precedent has been well established through years of AfDs that have all resulted in a kept article, hence why editors have chosen to write an essay about it. Neither an essay NOR a policy makes an article notable; notability makes a topic worthy of coverage, and that essay describes why roads of this nature are notable. Can this be closed now? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignoring the personal attack I would like to hear from someone not affiliated with the US roads Wikiproject. Albacore (talk) 06:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What personal attack? Can you please substantiate that allegation or strike it? My affiliation (I do not edit US Road articles, FYI) is irrelevant, and you are dodging my arguments. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 06:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As wikipedia does cover roads (I challenge the nominator to debate this point, but would prefer they did not) [1] If you can explain to me how an article with 0 written references is notable be my guest. Albacore (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait... that's a personal attack how? Can you provide a single policy, guideline, or (I'll even stretch it this far) essay that gives any indication that we require written references for a topic to be notable? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 06:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha, I guess it's not a personal attack, just some unnecessary comments. My view is that just because you are in a broad list of something (i.e a map) you are not inherently notable because you are on that map, and based on that I view the article to be unnotable since there are no written references outside of maps. Albacore (talk) 06:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that we have a pillar that says we are a gazetteer too. "A gazetteer is a geographical dictionary or directory, an important reference for information about places and place names (see: toponymy), used in conjunction with a map or a full atlas. It typically contains information concerning the geographical makeup of a country, region, or continent as well as the social statistics and physical features, such as mountains, waterways, or roads." (Emphasis mine.) Imzadi 1979 → 06:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable. If you buy a book about Pennsylvania, it will show this route. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW keep. WP:SPS says Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article... and there is unquestionably no entity on the planet that could be more of an expert on the topic of PA 370 than the agency that built it. When you take that snippet of policy in hand, this AFD doesn't have a leg to stand on. Nominator should be advised to consider researching prior outcomes of past AFDs before nominating to avoid nominating articles from a group that has been generally accepted by the community as acceptable for inclusion. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep. Articles about numbered state highways work as a collection, to provide complete encyclopedic coverage of the highway system. Long precedent establishes that we keep these articles. It does no good for anyone to create holes in the coverage or to start arguing road by road about their notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the nominator's arguments are based on incorrect premises regarding Wikipedia's guidelines on sources.  VC  17:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. No particular indication of why this road is important or special. All the maps prove is that it exists. There seem to be a lot of other road articles on here, maybe they're all notable, maybe they aren't. Who knows. It would be beneficial for a non-enthusiast to run a Pokemon test on them all. Are those shouting "speedy keep" assuming the nomination was in bad faith? --Ritchie333 (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According to Bing, this road exists. So, wikipedia should keep it since its verifiable. --Artene50 (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a valid keep reason, just because it exists doesn't make it notable. Albacore (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Features of the landscape, such as towns, schools, landforms and roads have long been held to be notable just simply by their existence. The truth of the matter is there is not available much secondary material on these types of things, but yet the community holds them important. This AfD seems like a vendetta being spearheaded by one individual. The presence of a different standard for inclusion for one type of article isn't some perverse sort of bad-willed discrimination. Patrol new articles for a while and see how many articles get put up and speedy deleted pertaining to bands that have never played a gig or some weird idea that maybe five people have shared. Things like these are totally non-notable, because no-one beyond the bands' mothers or the five people that shared the idea give a damn. But a road, even though it doesn't get coverage in the media, remains important. The fact that the state has recognized a particular stretch of pavement and noted that recognition by the placement of signs and the appropriation of funds for maintenance should be enough for notability. I wouldn't expect the community to find notability in Luce County Highway 432 (Michigan), because it is little more than a two track that starts in the middle of nowhere and leads even further into nowhere. But I do not think it is asking too much to simply live with the existing standard that "Existence=Notability" for state highways and other features of the landscape. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's a vendetta, merely someone questioning whether the status quo is still correct. Remember that in 2006, everyone thought all Pokemon were notable enough to have their own article. I get twitchy when people say "it's such-and-such because that's been the way we've always done things". --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pennsylvania_Route_370&oldid=1136470337"