Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia State Route 160

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 of the debate was keep.  Denelson83  07:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Georgia State Route 160

Its a former state route so its a nn road Delete --JAranda | watz sup 01:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The article does not definitely establish that this is no longer a state route. Gazpacho

• Question are decommissined state routes automatic deletes? If so fine, but otherwise I'm not sure somebody might not want info on it someday/
• Weakest keep. This is right on the edge of what I consider encyclopedic for roads. It's not simply surveying info, but goes into the confusion over whether the road was decommissioned and why parts of it were decommissioned. Furthermore, its western end lines up exactly with US 41, suggesting that it has some historical connection to that road and the Dixie Highway. Gazpacho 03:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete- It's just not notable. Reyk 04:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep We keep all state highways. For example Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Washington State Route 900. Eventually a Georgia WP will come around too. And it's not even a stub. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Just because it is no longer a state highway does not mean that it has lost the entire historic interest. The article may be useful to readers interested in the Georgia highway network. Why is it no longer a state highway? What replaced it? Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per precedent and because the article itself makes a good case for inclusion. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 14:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, I don't much like separate articles on roads, but being decommisioned shouldn't change anything about the article except its content. It's not a reason to delete it. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. People don't lose their notability because they die, and things don't lose their importance because they are decommissioned (otherwise, we would have to delete a lot of articles about ships, among other things). - 70.146.99.6 15:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC) - this is me, my login had expired. - Dalbury (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable, notable, and encyclopedic. —Cleared as filed. 15:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability orthagonal to current status. Turnstep 17:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep please... we keep all of these type of roads anyway Yuckfoo 23:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Preaky 03:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for the same succint reasons listed by Just zis Guy. Jacqui ^{★ 01:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)}
• Keep all current and former state highways. -- Grev -- Talk 04:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, all state highways are automatically kept.Gateman1997 03:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Provides encyclopedic and useful information. *drew 13:12, 16 November 2005 (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.