Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of freeways in Michigan

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. The list is complementary to the category. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of freeways in Michigan[edit]

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

The entries here (or that should be here) are in Category:Freeways and expressways in Michigan already. This was nominated for deletion in 2012 in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of expressways in Michigan, and substantially purged of OR at that time, but it's still roadcruft. (No other state in the US has such a list.) Imzadi 1979 → 03:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Category handles the need. Dough 48 72 03:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Redundant.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 03:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Being "redundant" is not a reason to delete. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided". This list article is complementary to Category:Freeways and expressways in Michigan. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Unneeded roadcruft. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What is "roadcruft" and why is that a reason for deletion? Why is it not needed? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Usually I'd love a debate but I don't see much point debating/answering as as you've said "One man's "roadcruft" is another man's useful information." which I actually completely agree to be honest, -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 09:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I can't find another article that lists the freeways by name. --Bamyers99 (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One man's "roadcruft" is another man's useful information. WP:NOTDUP is relevant here; the fact there is no WP:OTHERCRAP is not relevant to whether or not this should be kept or deleted. The category does not fill the need, because having a roadway that has, say, a two-mile freeway stretch on a 200-mile road (just to give an example of what I'm thinking about) in a freeways category would not be WP:DEFINING. While this list does need referencing and cleanup, that is not what AfD is for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly defined list of notable entries. The arguement for "keep the category only" fail WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as valid index of articles per WP:LISTPURP and as complement to the category per WP:NOTDUP; we don't delete lists just because categories cover the same subject. Particularly where this list clearly has more information than just the alphabetized article names, which is all the category can provide. There are other such lists for states, but it appears that there is not yet standardization in this area so they're harder to find (e.g., California Freeway and Expressway System, North Carolina Highway System are styled more as articles with incorporated lists of this kind). So this is an area that needs further development. Lastly, "roadcruft" does not even merit a response as it is not an argument. postdlf (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2014 (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.