Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota State Highway 91

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. - Mailer Diablo 12:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minnesota State Highway 91

Non-notable. "Article" composed of one sentence -Nv8200p talk 00:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• weak keep I have added terminus information... surely there must be more that can be mentioned. That an article needs to be expanded isn't a reason to delete. --W.marsh 01:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll add this. There is nothing notable about Minnesota State Highway 91 -Nv8200p talk 01:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Roads are not inherently notable. - CheNuevara 02:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I am under the impression that a general consensus exists that state highways generally have their own articles, regardless of notability. Hence the "state route naming conventions" link at the top of the Afd page. Will change to delete if its demonstrated that I've misunderstood. Dina 02:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents#Transportation and geography. But this needs serious expansion. --Roninbk _{t c #} 03:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 15:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, all state numbered primary highways are notable. Kirjtc2 16:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing inthe article to show why it is worthy of an encyclopedia article. This is not Route 66. Where is there an official policy that every state highwat is entitled to an article, even if devoid of meaningful content?Edison 21:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this is a state highway like any other. See Washington State Route 900 for another such debate, as well as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. State highways deserve articles. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. First, state highways have been deemed to be notable. Second, article length is not a reason to delete an article, only a reason to mark it as a stub. --TMF ^{T - C} 22:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep State Highways, as most modes of transit, are inherently notable.-- danntm ^T _C 22:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per danntm. —Jared Hunt September 24, 2006, 23:18 (UTC)
• Keep—per Dina. Williamborg (Bill) 03:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep All state numbered highways are notable. --Holderca1 13:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Remember, State Routes are noteable. Even so, Noteability is used becuse Non-Noteable subjects don't have enough verifiable sources. Roads have many, many, many of these in the form of the various governments.
• Keep as is customary. Gazpacho 17:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per precedent. The fact that it's a stub should have no bearing on the outcome of this debate. -- NORTH ^talk 16:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It lets you move smoothly, so move on, please! EyeMD 18:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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.