Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farm to Market Road 1417

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. Noting that if the need arises, this article can be merged to the appropriate article in the future. (non-admin closure) Ya sh! 04:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Farm to Market Road 1417[edit]

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

Citations in article all prove that this road exists, but none provide evidence of its actual notability. Article requires evidence that the road had been the topic of non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. Also, Google Maps urls are not viable as references. KDS4444^Talk 02:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—per WP:ROADOUTCOMES, most state-maintained highways are considered notable enough for stand-alone articles on Wikipedia. Also, the aside in the nomination statement regarding Google Maps is faulty. I can list dozens of Featured Articles that use Google Maps as references, in addition to using similar levels of citations for their sourcing. Given that FM roads in Texas are a class of secondary highway, in the future this could be merged into a list article similar to List of Farm to Market Roads in Texas (1–99). That is and on-going project, so deletion now would just mean a WP:REFUND for a future merger. Imzadi 1979 → 05:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 06:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 06:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable subject, but can be merged into an appropriate RCS list as mentioned by Imzadi1979. Dough4872 17:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with similar rationales as above, but to be sure that it is actually merged, with the appropriate templates for articles pending a merge. --Rs chen 7754 20:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now; per WP:OUTCOMES, this is notable as a component of a state-level highway system. The potential to merge as previously stated exists in the future. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge: Either keep the article or merge it with the appropriate list page. Charlotte Allison (Allen/Morriswa) (talk) 09:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ROADOUTCOMES as a notable state-maintained highway. Perhaps in the future a case could be made for merging it to List of Farm to Market Roads in North Texas but as that article isn't even a complete shell yet merger now would be inappropriate. - Dravecky (talk) 05:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three of these "Keep" votes reference WP:OUTCOMES. Ironically, that page states, "Avoid over-reliance on citing these "common outcomes" when stating one's case at Articles for Deletion. While precedents can be useful in helping to resolve notability challenges, editors are not necessarily bound to follow past practice. When push comes to shove, notability is demonstrated by the mustering of evidence that an article topic is the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in trustworthy independent sources." What would be nice is if someone could actually identify such sources for this article rather than suggesting that it seems notable but offering no evidence of it. Also: I mentioned Google maps as not being a viable source because everything can be found on Google maps. My mom's house can be found on Google maps. That doesn't make it notable. KDS4444^Talk 01:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your original comment was: "Google Maps urls are not viable as references". Funny though, but they are. See any of the dozens of Featured Articles on various state highways in the United States that almost all use Google Maps as a citation. If they weren't viable, then why would those FAs use the mapping service? As for WP:ROADOUTCOMES, we've been through dozens of AfDs over the years, and nearly universally, the community has kept articles on state-maintained highways; WP:USRD/P also documents these past deletion discussions. The line, for better or worse, has been drawn at state-level maintenance in the US. County- or city-level maintenance does not enjoy the presumption of suitability for articles. To borrow an example, Michigan State Trunkline Highway System is a clearly notable topic, but to give that topic justice without running into WP:SIZE, we've created List of Interstate Highways in Michigan, List of U.S. Highways in Michigan, List of state trunklines in Michigan and Pure Michigan Byway. Because those lists would then run into WP:SIZE-related concerns, individual highways have articles. This keeps with our mission under WP:5P to be a gazetteer, since gazetteers document roads. Imzadi 1979 → 01:41, 29 October 2015 (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.