Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County roads in Anoka County, Minnesota

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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

County roads in Anoka County, Minnesota

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

Somewhat useless list of roads in a single county, the only justification is that other articles of a similar kind exist (see WP:OTHERSTUFF), however I cannot see any source that confers any particular notability on this subject, nor can I see any evidence that the individual roads are notable. I'd consider withdrawing this if sources can be found that disprove either of these two assertions. --Salimfadhley (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Salimfadhley (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, what he said. Not notable, no possibility of notability, not a valid article. — Smuckola (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So far, everybody is baselessly stating that it's notable, but I'd really appreciate a policy-based explanation why an article like this is WP:N. I don't understand why any of the content is notable, and if it is, then it must satisfy WP:N in order to get its own article at all. I don't mean to be thick or controversial, and I appreciate the favor. It seems that they all need to be in 'list' class and renamed to "List of...". I have seen lots of boring and untenable lists, but they're all of notable things which each have (or are expected to have) their own articles, such as video games, movies, and artists. Any other list item is removed. These articles are entirely of categorically non-notable list items and other content. It's almost like this is a list of stuff *because* it's non-notable, so we had to trump it up by creating a list of it. WP:NOTDIR Thanks. — Smuckola (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page might answer a few of your questions. In essence, it's true that this is a list because the individual entries do not warrant their own articles. But usually the system as a whole can be seen as notable, and part of the clean-up others are mentioning would hopefully be to add a lead section about the system. Also, NOTDIR doesn't really seem to be applicable based on the 7 examples given there. WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which includes gazetteer functions. "Pepper" @ 06:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 03:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 03:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lists of county roads are notable enough, as long as the routes don't get individual articles. However, that list needs serious cleanup. Dough4872 04:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable and a general application of WP:USRD's Rockland County Scenario. Publications such as this one are usually out there for county road systems as a whole. It actually says a fair amount about the county road system (but not individual roads), which is perhaps why the article is better off as a list. "Pepper" @ 05:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This use of RCS is fine to assemble this list of county routes in the standard manner. Obviously it needs improvement. Rcsprinter¹²³ (dialogue) 15:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. County road lists like this are encyclopedic material, and consistent with Wikipedia's gazeteer function. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Notability Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keeo - as mentioned above, this is the standard way in which Wikipedia presents articles on county road systems; remember that Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it's a gazetteer. The list may need cleanup but that is not what AfD is for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability, all those !voting keep are citing USRD essays. If someone can establish some sort of notability then I'll reconsider my position. Worst case scenario, at least merge all this roadcruft into a single list article per state and try to turn them into something useful (not personally convinced on that one - but could be worth a shot), but first preference is certainly delete. Jeni ^(talk) 22:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "It's only an essay" is an argument to avoid. These can not be merged into "a single list article per state", as such a list would be ridiculously huge - and needing to be split, right back to the by-county level. Wikipedia is a gazetteer and as such road networks are notable and articles on them are appropriate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You quoted two more essay's there! Personal opinion, that's all those are. Also, can you show me specifically where it says "Wikipedia is a gazetteer" please? The 5P link you gave gives this quote "It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." - which is very different to "Wikiepedia is a gazetteer". Jeni ^(talk) 23:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you're so eager to dismiss established WP:CONSENSUS solely because of the manner in which it is described. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Reformat - The article looks too much like an essay, despite the fact that it's just a list. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2015 (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.