Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of traffic circles in New Jersey

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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 10:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of traffic circles in New Jersey

This list contains about half of the 67 traffic circles that New Jersey is infamous for.

While the history behind those traffic circles is important - it's amongst the most densely settled states and boasts more paved roads per area than any other state, thus experiments in traffic engineering were likely made here -, an incomplete list of individual road (mis)features, most of which have been converted due to safety concerns, appears pointless. Pilatus 17:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --JAranda | watz sup 18:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' this list of infamous traffic circles.--Nicodemus75 21:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep, part of the history of traffic engineering. Kappa 02:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If the list is incomplete, the solution is to make it less so, not delete it. If completeness were a good standard, there would be comparatively few articles on Wikipedia. Besides, there's a more complete list in the comments. Those listed are mainly those notable enough to be named, and more are added as those familiar with them add named circles that have been overlooked. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this absurd red-link farm of an article. Denni ☯ 02:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I think knowing about these is important. But do they really need to all be listed. A few of the more important ones already have articles. Is that enought? If the ones without articles today were changed to a bolded entry without a link, my vote would change to a Weak Keep. Vegaswikian 05:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only two of them have articles (the other blue links are redirects), and I fail to see how traffic circles are notable. Do we want to see a list of roundabouts in Skelmersdale? No thanks. TheMadBaron 06:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; these are local landmarks. --SPUI (talk) 08:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. How can things "being eliminated", "defunct", and being passed by be notable landmarks? -- Corvus 04:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- They're more than a little notorious, even in memory, and are important to the history of traffic engineering. New Jersey's roads were once known for them as much as for anything else, and even where they have been eliminated or bypassed strong traces of them often remain in defaced or vestigal form. Articles on individual circles make that clear: I've added aerial photos in the cases where I can positively identify them and it's surprising how much of even heavily modified circles are still evident. They may even still be known locally by the old name in many cases. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That actually proves my point. Mentioning Spaghetti Junction in Birmingham raises eyebrows; mentioning the Airport Circle in Newark does so only because one thinks of the this being yet another roundabout in NJ. It's the lot of them that is noteworthy, not the individual road feature. As far as them being local landmarks, I hope there won't be n Lists of named intersections in $TOWN, this is an encyclopedia, not a map in words. Pilatus 14:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not noteworthy. MONGO 04:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good list related to traffic engineering. Un focused 04:03, 26 October 2005 (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.