Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies surrounding private highways (2nd nomination)

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 Merge this POV fork back into Private highway. JERRY ^talk _contribs 18:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies surrounding private highways[edit]

Not notable, possibly a POV fork. I noted on the user's talkpage how there wasn't any mainstream debate over this (see here, using a theoretical "controversies over public toilets" as an example). 5 days later, this article was created. Perhaps I'm wrong -- I'm willing to compromise, of course. At the very least, if it is notable, the content should be merged back into Private highway.

Also, this was nominated for AfD only a few days ago (see here), but the user withdrew his nomination and closed the discussion after just a couple of days. I believe his original AfD had merit and I'd like to have at least a full five days of debate before it's closed. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of books, legislative testimony, think tank studies, etc. out there about the highway privatization issue which continues to rage in statehouses across the country (and the world). It's not really a POV fork since both sides of the debate are presented in the article in a reasonably balanced manner. We could move the stuff back into the main article but that main article, by the time it's done, is probably going to be approaching the page size limit (and the same can be said for the controversy page); so I say, let's keep that stuff in a separate article from the outset, where it will be more accessible anyway to those who just want to skip to the info about the controversy. Sarsaparilla (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In reference to statement that there's not mainstream debate over this, see http://www.northfortynews.com/Archive/A200507OwensVeto.htm : "The Colorado legislature has made its exit for the year, but the issue of private toll roads is still as hot as asphalt in July." Sarsaparilla (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to private highway, which is hardly an exhaustive or excessively large article. This really shouldn't be broken out unless it is. --Dhartung | Talk 20:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarsaparilla, that source you provided is a local newspapers that shows there's a debate in a local community over a single private toll road. In my own area, there was a debate over whether a historical landmark called the "Cider Barrel," should've been sold off to private developers or not. The existence of such tiny disputes do not establish relevancy or notability for the average reader. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. I'm not even going to respond in any more detail here because the absurdity of these claims of non-notability is so self-evident that a keep or at least a merge/redirect is assured. I'm as vocal a critic of deletionism and the deletion process as anyone, but even I trust the community to make the right decision on this one. Sarsaparilla (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete This doesn't justify a separate article, and is pretty lightweight stuff verging on OR. NBeale (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way – if the intent is to merge, isn't this the kind of thing that's normally dealt with using the {{mergeto}} template rather than AfD? Sarsaparilla (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I suppose this article really does need to be merged into private highway, preferably without overwhelming that article. Before that happens, though, the POV issue needs to be addressed. Yes, this treatment of the subject does have "arguments for" and "arguments against" sections, but the "for" arguments are merely presented whereas the "against" arguments include detailed counter-arguments, clearly indicating the author's sentiments. Tim Ross·^talk 12:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarsaparilla: That comment above is an appeal to ridicule. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't! For you even to suggest such a thing is preposterous. Sarsaparilla (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2008 (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.