Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smith County Highway 14

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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smith County Highway 14[edit]

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

This article fails basic verification, and the subject fails to meet the notability test. While state highways are generally assumed to be notable, county roads, and this is a county road, need to meet WP:GNG to have a stand-alone article. Also, it seems odd that a county road in Mississippi is named according to a nomenclature only found in Minnesota (county state-aid highway), leading me to think that the article creator lacks a firm grasp on what this roadway really is. Imzadi 1979 → 19:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked through the references given on the page and I couldn't find any mention of this road. And after reviewing maps of the area, I find it hard to believe that this road is notable. –Fredddie ™ 19:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've also found zero RSes for this non-notable road. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 21:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As the author of the page, I can understand the reasons presented on why the page should be deleted. Well, most of the reasons. I do want to take a moment here to address a few of the issues I have seen here supporting deletion. First off, regarding the naming. Whether or not it is named "County State-Aid Highway" is, to me, irrelevant. All states have a program for state-funded county roads. If you want to get technical, this road is actually federally and state funded. I'll be happy to drive to the construction site and post the signs that show where funding came from. The name used for the article is a proposed name for the finished road. Secondly, I've seen several people claim that they cannot find the road on a map or any other "verifiable" source. In the history section of the article, it clearly says that the road is generally labeled as SCR 14. I can go to Google and punch in SCR 14 in Taylorsville, MS, and I will be presented with this road. Clearly it exists, the project bid plans are in the sources! Why would a county spend money on a non-existent road? Just my two cents to the discussion. MCIntoDarkness (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that the road doesn't exist, it clearly does exist. The issues are why this road is notable enough to have an article and the quality of the sources. Firstly, the relevant notability guideline (WP:USRD/NT) suggests "When writing an article on such a highway, it is especially imperative that the article make a claim for the road's notability," otherwise it should be a list entry. Claiming that the road is the primary access to an industrial park of a town of 1300 people does not meet that standard. There are thousands of county roads in every state. What makes this one notable enough to have an article here?
Secondly, two of the sources that you used do not mention CR 14 at all; if they did, you must tell us where they mention the road. Page F-3 of the Selected Statistics from MDOT is route descriptions of MS 23 through MS 39. So that reference fails. The other link from MDOT, once you get to Smith County, does indeed show CR 14 (unlabeled), but doesn't back up the claim that the road is maintained by MDOT. Lastly, the third link is merely an announcement that bids could be accepted to rebuild the road. It mentions that federal money will be used to pay for the road (and thus requiring contractors to follow federal guidelines); however, it makes no mention of securing a grant from the FHA. So that fails as well.
So we have a high bar for notability that I don't feel has been met and a sources that are used questionably or incorrectly. Those are the reasons why I !voted delete. –Fredddie ™ 05:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MCIntoDarkness: the TL;DR version of my colleague's comments, and part of the basis for my nomination, is that we have to follow WP:GNG, which says we need "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject" to justify an article on a topic. Purely existing does not meet that threshold, especially when it comes to a county-level road. (As I noted, we presume state highways are notable, but that presumption doesn't extend to state funding of county roads.) Add to that the verification issues, and we have a situation that calls for deletion. Imzadi 1979 → 13:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Imzadi1979: I see your point now. I do understand that Wikipedia has guidelines, and by all means, I want to follow them and be a good member here. I understand why you feel the article should be deleted, and I understand. It was my intention to create a county road list for Mississippi, similar to the one found in Minnesota, or at the least get a category going with the counties listed for other members to add to, very similar to how the current List of state highways in Mississippi page is set up. As a compromise to deletion, could some members that have commented on this thread possibly try to assist in getting that list going? Also, should the article be deleted, is there any way for me to preserve the work that I put into it? MCIntoDarkness (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless more sources can be found to verify why this county route is special enough to have its own article. Dough4872 15:49, 7 November 2016 (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.