Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unused highways
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 Keep. Nishkid64 19:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- List of unused highways (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)
Use of this term was apparently coined by a couple of editors for the purpose of use in Wikipedia, the definition of a neologism. This article was originally kept (as Ghost ramp) in an AfD; a second AfD was improperly closed by a non-admin who proposed its deletion when he moved it to the current name. A move back to "ghost ramp" would not be appropriate since the list has expanded well past its original meaning and contains abandoned road structures (and some road structures never built) that are not ghost/stub ramps. B.Wind 03:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per the prior [1] [2] two discussions, the results were no consensus and keep but rename. The last AFD was also closed not that long ago; therefore I submit that this AFD be speedy closed. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a shame. As that, it is a Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Renominations and recurring candidates waste of our time --
- "Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an article, but repeated nominations for deletion are not necessarily evidence that an article should be deleted, and in some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete."
- "Renomination costs additional volunteer time and server resources, on top of the original nomination." Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This was the first nomination of "List of unused highways" under that title; therefore the argument above does not apply. B.Wind 04:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is this separate from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unused highway? --NE2 04:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I have not had as much experience at opening AfDs as other editors.B.Wind 04:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unused highway (these two AfDs should actually be linked) --Mhking 04:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Beyond the technical considerations, this seems like a well made and useful article. Other than the title of the article, what is the reason for deletion? Citicat 04:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a duplicate of unused highway. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This list article needs some love & affection in getting its focus together (and a case could be made for splitting it by country), and if it needs to be renamed, then get that sorted out. Deletion is out of the question, though -- this is interesting stuff. -/- Warren 04:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment; Are you debating the name of the article or the content? I see no reason to delete the article, and you've given no reason. If you feel that the name is not appropriate for the article then by all means change it, or discuss it on the talk page. wtfunkymonkey 05:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and close AFD! --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Useful. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Useful" is not a valid keep criterion. MANY useful things are excluded from the 'pedia through various policies and guidelines. Please provide valid reasoning for your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zunaid (talk • contribs)
- There is no need to, if the user states Keep, the tabulation is valid. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Useful" is not a valid keep criterion. MANY useful things are excluded from the 'pedia through various policies and guidelines. Please provide valid reasoning for your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zunaid (talk • contribs)
- Keep How many times are we going to go through this? --MPD T / C 06:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but rename to List of notable unused highways and set some criteria for inclusion; there are an awful lot of unused or disused ramps in this world, or small sections of unused highway. Probably should be split between ramps and highway sections, using some criterion. --Brianyoumans 06:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep definitely noteworthy. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Has if you can find such a term that covers the catch-all in this article and cite it, I will gladly withdraw my nomination been satisfied? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per all the above. Wasted Time R 11:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very strong Delete (Ignore the tangent I'm about to go on and skip straight to the encyclopedic reasoning: Good grief!!! Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that every unfinished ramp of every highway in the world is that important that they have to be assembled into a list?) The question here is notability. While in general major highways that actually exist are considered inherently notable, unused/unfinished ramps/portions of said highways are not notable in and of themselves (they do not automatically inherit notability from the parent highway), nor are unfinished highways notable. There is no demonstration of "multiple third-party reliable sources" documenting these phantom highways, thus no evidence of notability has been shown. Another question is that of "level of detail". The content of this article/list goes to an extremely high level of detail, IMHO to a level that an encyclopedia (even a non-paper one) should not cover. Let the encyclopedia give an encyclopedic "arm's length overview" and keep the minutae out of the 'pedia proper. Zunaid©® 15:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No, the question posed was -- "Use of this term was apparently coined by a couple of editors for the purpose of use in Wikipedia, the definition of a neologism." See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unused highway on why the original argument was solved, and why his second recommendation was also solved. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unused highway. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This term is indirectly referred to in this article, California Highways, where it speaks about proposed bypasses that followed an alignment of streets or other proposed highways. Ronbo76 20:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unused highway. V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 20:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I am indifferent on the [[unused highway AfD, but this list seems helpful enough. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 21:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. This continuing spree of AfDs is getting rather pointless. --EngineerScotty 21:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Why remove verifiable information? Yes, it is boring, dull, nerdish... But so what?-Docg 21:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable per multiple references. Not all highway project that are started are immediately finished, leaving sections of road which go nowhere. Likewise bridges and ramps get built but are never connected to anything, or somep time passes before they pare placed in service, or they were formerly in service but have been isolated pending reconnection or demolition. I can't see what the issue is other than disputing the verifiability and notability of individual ones. Edison 22:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Edison, Doc G, Engineer Scotty, et al. Newyorkbrad 23:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep as there is no valid reason listed for deletion. John Reaves (talk) 07:26, 20 January 2007 (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.