Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M13 motorway

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 no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

M13 motorway[edit]

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

As well as lacking inline citations, the evidence provided in the linked articles is completely speculative. There is no actual evidence that a motorway number was even considered (the linked documentation gives the legend "A13 / M13") and no documentation to how the motorway would have bypassed Southend has been found. I would possibly suggest that any source for the proposed barrage around Southend can be added to Southend on Sea if and when it arises. Ritchie333 (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pathetic Motorways and CBRD are both good third-party sources of information. They base their research on actual official documentation released at the time and it is far from speculative. Yes, there's a question mark over whether they were planning to call it the A13 or M13, but lack of certainty over an article title is not in itself ground for deletion. There might be a case for merging all the London Ringway articles together, but certainly not deletion. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your support for CBRD / PM. For what it's worth, I have seen some of the documentation used in their research and can absolutely vouch for its authenticity. However, in this case, I also know that the mention of the M13 and its proposed route comes from a single drawing showing only part of a route, marked up as part of a general set of ideas for proposed routes to the airport at Maplin Sands. By contrast, look at something like the northern (unbuilt) section of the M23, which as well as appearing in official documentation over numerous years, also appears as "projected" on commercial road atlases and its route can be inferred by looking at the age of buildings along it (which were only constructed after the DfT finally sold the land c. 1995). I guess the question would be - does one off-hand comment in a file make it notable enough to appear as an article in its own right? --Ritchie333 (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm unsure whether this is notable enough to sustain an article or not. Anyone with access to The Times digital archives (most UK library cards give this) will find info there on the proposals. Would suggest Hansard may also prove a fruitful place to search. The White Paper was published on 23 July 1973, so we've got a base point to look from. The "Say no to Maplin" campaign mentioned in one of the two "sources" (they really should be inline citations) was going by December 1973.

Hansard was a good bet in one sense - this gives some good information on the Ringway proposal as a whole, but there doesn't seem to be anything on the individual components, either M13 or M12. Maybe a grouped article would be more benficial? Alzarian16 (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - sources are verifiable and reliable. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 22:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - A single source from TNA by the MOT is reliable in terms of it existing, but is that enough to warrant an article on what somebody vaguely speculated in a draft in the 1960s? --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Doesn't matter. The claim to notability rests on the secondary sources (CBRD & Pathetic motorways) rather than the primary sources. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - So why have people in the past had a pop at CBRD / PM for failing WP:SPS and tagging them as unreliable sources (as discussed here)? Either they're unreliable or they're not. --Ritchie333 (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - That link requires registration to view it. I'm prepared to listen to arguments for and against using websites as reliable sources, but using a forum post as evidence is even less reliable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh yes, it does require registration :-/ .... it's actually a straight transcription of WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive178#Just_in_passing... with a response to it. --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        That's an opinion that was raised on an unrelated noticeboard over two years ago, and never followed up. For what it's worth, Pathetic Motorways does contain a mixture of fact and opinion/pedantry, but it is quite clear which is which. The only argument I saw against PM's reliability was about opinions on what constitutes a "pathetic" motorway and whether a slip road off the M65 counts as the "Walton Summit Motorway", but provided you do the job correctly and separate fact from opinion in secondary sources (same as you do for mainstream newspapers), that's not an issue. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2011 (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.