Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Fork Road

Add links
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The result was withdrawn on the basis that reliable sources have been presented. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 02:48, 29 December 2007 (GMT)

East Fork Road[edit]

East Fork Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Just a side road of California State Route 39. There is no evidence to establish/support its notability. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 20:15, 28 December 2007 (GMT)

  • Delete. Not notable. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; this was a major project that was stopped twice: first by a flood and then by budget cuts. [1] has some history and a map; [2] and [3] should be useful if anyone has access to the LA Times archive. There are several more sources in [4]. --NE2 20:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So? --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, it's clearly notable. --NE2 21:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You proved it was verifiable, not notable. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Read Wikipedia:Notability. --NE2 21:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I did. If there are RS, a verifiable subject is presumed to be notable. However, in this case it is not. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Why not? --NE2 21:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's just a side road. Fails WP:USRD/NT. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • So what? It's still notable per the general criterion. --NE2 21:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable road that is the stub of a major highway that was washed out mid-construction. It is the subject of a 700-word article: "HIKING: SAN GABRIEL MOUNTAINS; Unfinished Road Makes Great Footpath;" JOHN McKINNEY. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Oct 8, 2000. pg. 15. The road was closed due to a rockslide and washed-out bridge in 2005, resulting in 200 people being stranded for a few days, an event event which received considerable local coverage. The road follows a canyon that is a center for gold prospecting in Southern California, and which is deeper than the Grand Canyon. I'm not sure if there are special notability standards for roads, but I doubt that many have articles written about them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are over ten thousand articles written about roads. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I meant articles in reliable, 3rd-party sources. Being the subject of such an article is one of the usual signs of notability used on WP. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The relevant notability standard says:
        • While for the most part, county highways should be in a list article, there may be a select few major county highways that are notable enough to have their own article. These include freeways/expressways, roads that are former primary state highways, or roads with other special historical significance. When writing an article on such a highway, it is especially imperative that the article make a claim for the road's notability.
      • This road has special historical significance. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Regardless of how notable this road supposedly is, the article (which is what we're discussing here) is unreferenced and makes no claims of notability. If the road is truly notable, it should not be hard to expand it. So I ask those that claim its notability to improve the article. Now you may say to me, "do it yourself", but you have the resources to improve this article; I do not. I don't believe this is too much to ask of those who have commented above. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article cites no references and makes no claim to notability.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Scott5114 and Rschen7754. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 23:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Bridge to Nowhere (San Gabriel Mountains). The "Bridge to Nowhere" gives the road notability. However, this article violates WP:NOT#INFO and it should be merged into the Bridge to Nowhere article, as such. It belongs there. --Son (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with either the bridge or with California State Route 39 (to which it serves as a connector) until such a time when there is sufficient information for a more substantial treatment of the topic. --Polaron | Talk 23:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: all of the delete votes refer to it being unsourced or non-notable, neither of which is true. --NE2 23:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:NOT#INFO. --Son (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You've written that twice, but I don't see the applicability. This road has been the subject of a medium-length profile in a major newspaper. By conventional WP standards that established notability. What does WP:NOT#INFO say that overrides that notability? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:13, 29 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/East_Fork_Road&oldid=1137814347"