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.
A poster child for WP:NOTCRYSTAL, as the project ground to a halt less than a year after the previous AfD concluded, as related here. Contrary to the article and the previous discussion, no segment has been completed: there are some disconnected sections of paving, connecting to nothing. So there is no I-422, and it looks as though for now there isn't going to be; it might not even be given this name if it is ever completed. Possibly there is some record of failed highway projects we keep where this material can be used, but this needs to have gone the first time around. Mangoe (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no actual working road. This may change at some point, but there is no current indication it will.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can trump your 2017 al.com article, Mangoe, with a more recent article from the same place. ☺
Once again, the major problem is not having this as Birmingham Northern Beltline, which it has been known as since the late 1980s, irrespective of road number.
Move to Birmingham Northern Beltline. The history of a northern loop around Birmingham, regardless of if or when it will come to fruition or what the potential numeric designation is, is certainly an encyclopedic topic. Notability is not temporary, and WP:GNG is met, given the existence of reliable sources (including rather recent ones, as indicated above). --Kinut/c 17:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List_of_future_Interstate_Highways#Other_proposals with a new and shorter subsection for Birmingham Northern Beltline. Proposed and never built highways can actually be notable if they have generated enough coverage. The article already includes references that demonstrate that this project has generated such coverage and therefore it is a notable topic for inclusion on a larger page. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 18:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: to come to consensus on merger target Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 01:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As repeatedly demonstrated at AFD, failed proposals (for secession of states, for many other actions) are frequently notable and Wikipedia articles about them are Kept. E.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of proposed provinces and territories of Canada, closed Keep in June 2021, which lists numerous proposals, some having separate articles. Because a proposal can have plenty of substantial coverage, justifying an article, and this is good IMHO because it is important for the world to "remember" and learn from the proposals. I believe that the deletion nominator is fully aware of this, and their proposal citing WP:NOTCRYSTAL is completely unjustified. Another experienced editor goes with statement that "There is no actual working road" which is absolutely besides the point.
Merging an article about a proposal to a suitable list-article can be done sometimes if there is an appropriate target to which to merge, and if the merger material would not be too much to include in the target. However List of future Interstate Highways does not sound like an appropriate target, because this proposal is understood not to be one of those. The "Proposals" subsection of that list is about, I think, proposals that are still viable and expected to become future Interstate Highways. And further note every one of the proposal subsections there links to a separate "main" article. If that list-article were to be renamed and/or other editing took place there which led to inclusion there of a section on this proposal, that might be fine and good, but still the existing separate article should be Kept because the material is too long to include there.
Suggestions above that this article should be renamed to "Birmingham Northern Beltline" sound reasonable perhaps, to me, but the AFD should be closed "Keep", and a rename proposal can be separately considered using usual wp:RM method. This discussion itself is not adequate to justify a rename, IMO, as many participants here are not considering it as the main real option. I think it best to just close this as Keep, or "Keep, obviously", perhaps with explicit admonishment to the deletion nominator and perhaps others not to waste others' time at wp:AFD. --Doncram (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2022 (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.
