Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstate 3

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 speedy keep. Nominator withdrew discussion. Rs chen 7754 07:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 3[edit]

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

No highway does not exists like Interstate 570 (although it had its AFD was deleted a year ago and deleted again), since there's no announcement , logs or construction date. Nothing but speculation. JJ98 (Talk) 06:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

~~Also nominating for the same reason since it does not exist, although it appeared Google Maps, but nothing has been signed:~~

Withdraw nomination for deletion, since it passes WP:GNG as needs sources to improve it. JJ98 (Talk) 07:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk) 08:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: None of these articles should be deleted. Even if they are only proposals, they should not be deleted. Also, there are some other articles on proposed Interstate highways. Should they be deleted, too? I think not. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as much as I hate articles on future highways, the government has passed relevant legislation on these, so they are notable. --Rs chen 7754 08:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—AfD isn't cleanup, and what these articles need is clean up. The are part of Congressionally designated corridors, and as such, notable. Imzadi 1979 → 15:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The legislation has been passed. This article needs cleanup but is notable. We have several other articles about proposed highways that haven't even passed legislation but are notable and those are kept because of notability. This one certainly appears notable. Jguy _Talk^Done 16:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, whether or not these ever actually get built, they are serious proposals that have received Congressional action. Substantial coverage in reliable sources. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Future Interstate Highways. I am not denying that these articles are notable, but I do not think they are notable enough to be on their own. Once merged, main templates can be added to direct readers to the existing highway along the corridor, if relevant. Interstate 2 should be added to this list of Articles for Deletion. V C 23:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Unlike the other highways in this nomination, Interstate 2 is an AASHTO-approved designation that is being applied to an already-existing freeway, meaning that TxDOT can put up I-2 signs whenever they feel it's appropriate. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Highway is designated by law. Dough 48 72 00:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2013 (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.