Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota State Highway 127

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 00:58Z

[edit] Minnesota State Highway 127

Minnesota State Highway 127 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This unreferenced stub about fails to show that it is notable. It is a 2.4 mile (4km) road connecting Interstate 94 with a small street in a small town. Nothing but a few farms are located on it and apparently nothing of significance has happened on it. It is not a Route 66 by any stretch of the imagination. There does not appear to be potential for expanding the stub into an encyclopedic article. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not says: WP:NOT#DIR Wikipedia is not a directory. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Also per Wikipedia:Wikipedia articles are not :WP:NOT#IINFO Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Sometimes material is submitted that is perfectly factual and verifiable, but falls outside the scope of Wikipedia. Perhaps this could be placed in a Wiki devoted to every section of pavement in the world, but it does not appear to be notable or encyclopedic. I am not aware of any policy that all sections of pavement are inherently notable. Inkpaduta 16:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep and expand. All active state routes are inherently notable. See here, here, and here for precedents. --HowardSF-U­-T-C- 16:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. HowardSF is mistaken. The three examples he provides were kept because No Consensus - default to keep. Nothing has happened on this stretch of road. Expand it with one article on "traffic fatalities" or "nations biggest pothole" to show that something is happening there and I might change my mind. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clerks (talk • contribs) 17:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
How does this have to do with that? This article is not a travel guide. See my comment below.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions 01:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per precedents. The highway was improved and marked by the state for the use of motorists, making it notable. According to [1], it is part of Constitutional Route 3, taken over when old US 52 east of Osakis was given to the counties. --NE2 18:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, assuming that this can be verifiably referenced in the next few days. (jarbarf) 18:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I just referenced most of it. The creation date can be referenced from old state maps, which I don't have. --NE2 19:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. If a highway is important enough the state DOT bothered to assign it a number, it's notable enough for Wikipedia. —Scott5114↗ 19:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep and close per Scott5114 and NE2. V60 VTalk · VDemolitions 20:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per V60 et al, but see my comments on WT:USRD]. --MPD T / C 22:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents says, regarding "Transportation and geography" the following:"Highways and interstates (major roads and motorways) are, at the moment, disputed." There is no policy that a short connecting road such as this has notability without meeting the requirement of multiple sources which are reliable and which have nontrivial coverage of it as a primary subject. Hiway fans keep claiming there is precedent that a numbered state hiway is inherently notable, but the precedent is lack of consensus and strong dispute that anything, least of all this 2.4 miles of pavement, is automatically notable. The only references anyone has found during this debate are a map and a printout of a bid list, both exceedingly trivial covreage. Lots of improvements costing $600,000 like the bid shown are also not notable, even if the government paid for them and they bear a number. Firetrucks and airplanes cost that much and also have numbers, but we do not have an article for every individual one. Inkpaduta 22:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Think of it as summary style: we could have a large article, list of Minnesota state highways, that certainly has "multiple non-trivial references". Splitting is then an organizational matter that cannot affect whether the information should be on Wikipedia. --NE2 23:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • That is not what it said a few months ago. During November, there was no such dispute going on; I have contacted the editor who made the change to see what was going on. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above, highways are notable. Apparently the precedents page was changed in November[2], but I can't find whatever discussion is being referenced. BryanG(talk) 23:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • According to the editor (Radiant!), it was a reference to WP:RFAR/HWY. However, that had to do with naming conventions, not notability. Thus, the change should be reversed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Highways are notable; I would support a merge, however, if 127 is considered a minor spur of a larger road. 23skidoo 23:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per above. We would need to find the proof of it being a spur of a larger route. If it is obvious enough yes - merge. • master_sonLets talk 02:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Don't mischaracterize the precedents given, please. While the first one is, yes, no concensus, the other two were keeps, including Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minnesota_State_Highway_91, which is very similar to this case, which the result was keep. Moreover, more precedents can be found here and here. Note that the latter is route that no longer actively exists. If a state finds a route notable enough to number the route, then it should be considered notable. Using this test is much less arbitary and more consistent; it's either numbered by the state or isn't, as opposed to the myriad reasons given for deleting state route articles in the past. And numbering by the state doesn't change because different people contribute to a AfD. In addition, state highways are found in government reports, atlases, travel guides, etc. Hardly unencyclopedic by any means, and even if it's only borderline encyclopedic, m:Wikipedia is not paper—articles can be created that would not appear in a paper encyclopedia. There's thousands of little small towns that have articles here, yet would not appear in anything but government reports, atlases, gazeteers, etc. Should those be removed as well?--HowardSF-U­-T-C- 04:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep highways are notable per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways . --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, roadcruft. Edeans 06:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • delete not that this will be the consensus, but i think it might begin to be time to start questioning this earlier decision on notability--it must strike any outsider as absurd.DGG 06:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. State highways are part of the main skeleton in a state's road infrastructure and valid enough topics in covering the transport system. Trying to establish a minimum length for notability will be an arbitrary condition, so we are better off just keeping all of the numbered highways. The number of short numbered highway sections are not all that overwhelming. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all numbered highways per Scott5114. Dismissing something as "roadcruft" is not providing any meaningful to the closing administrator for consideration. RFerreira 08:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Nor is it helpful to the closing admin to make false claims of Wikipedia policies that 'all numbered pieces of pavement are inherently notable' so policies per WP:N do not require multiple independent reliable sources with substantial (non-directory, non-hiwayfansite, non-statwhiwaymap, non bid-list) coverage. Saying "Highways are all notable" is just another way of saying "ILIKEIT!" and can be discounted in tabulating comments. Inkpaduta 15:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Wrong. It instead implies that this route is part of the Minnesota State Trunk Highway system, and therefore is notable. Sure, U.S. Route 66 is very notable, but how about Pennsylvania Route 999? Should that be considered roadcruft and listed on AFD? I don't think so.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions 22:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Correct. DGG and Inkpaduta are merely pointing out what should be a blatantly obvious absurdity. Edeans 23:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
So this is how this came to be... --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
By the same token, you should be able to throw out the vote above saying "roadcruft", or essentially "I don't like it." --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Plus, Wikipedia is not paper.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions 01:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Articles exist on Wikipedia for much more obscure items than a state highway. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • delete. This article contains no room for expansion or inclusion of notability; it's just a desolate stretch of asphalt. Indescriminate. Salad Days 03:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what indiscriminate means; restricting articles to signed numbered highways is very discriminate. --NE2 03:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I suggest limiting articles to subjects which have detailed sources. Salad Days 03:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
There are detailed sources about Minnesota's state highway system, of which this is a part. Please read Wikipedia:summary style and think about whether it would be a good idea to create one article, several hundred kilobytes in size, with information about all the highways. --NE2 03:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment The 2 sources are only trivial ones: it is on a map. and the state paid a contractor to pave it. Has there been a magazine article about the road's importance to the ecnomy, or about sights you can see along it, or about controversy because of some ecological effect it has? So far its existence is proved, but there is nothing to show it is of any importance or notability. It looks like there are only about 6 farmhouses located along it, so it is hard to see how it is any more important than a very minor city street. Inkpaduta 15:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
As I said above:
"Think of it as summary style: we could have a large article, list of Minnesota state highways, that certainly has "multiple non-trivial references". Splitting is then an organizational matter that cannot affect whether the information should be on Wikipedia."
--NE2 18:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, since (as least currently) the trend seems to be that state routes are notable. I suggest that the people involved in this debate over the notability of highways take it someplace else and discuss just what makes a notable highway before AfD is blasted with a bunch of disruptive nominations. We have a lovely dispute resolution process, I hear. --UsaSatsui 21:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It is not disruptive to nominate an article for deletion when it does not satisfy the general criterion WP:N even if several editors say "ILIKEIT." There is no policy or guideline which says that all numbered roads in the world are inherently notable. Please do no make unsupported accusations of disruptive editing, as that is incivil. AFD is the appropriate forum for deciding which articles should be kept, not "dispute resolution." Inkpaduta 00:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't say that this nomination was disruptive, but if all of a sudden people go on a tear of nominating road articles to prove a point, that would be disruptive, and it seems some people have already taken the first step down that road. There's obviously a disagreement on whether or not state routes have inherent notability, and the place to settle that is in dispute resolution, not by throwing out AfDs. --UsaSatsui 04:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The state highway series of articles is a good example of the tyranny of the majority, even in a setting that strives for consensus. A large number of people simply believe that all state-designated roads are inherently notable, and so much "precedent" has built up that even in obviously deletable articles like this, keep will always be the default result. See also articles on the haigiography of science fiction and fantasy authors, and the infamous pages of pokemon characters. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
We've given well-reasoned reasons for the inclusion of such articles. Thus, the majority is being effective. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I may be missing something but the only reason I see given is exactly the one I stated: "the consensus is that all roads are notable, therefore this road is notable."-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
How about "The highway was improved and marked by the state for the use of motorists, making it notable. According to [3], it is part of Constitutional Route 3, taken over when old US 52 east of Osakis was given to the counties"? "State highways are part of the main skeleton in a state's road infrastructure and valid enough topics in covering the transport system. Trying to establish a minimum length for notability will be an arbitrary condition, so we are better off just keeping all of the numbered highways. The number of short numbered highway sections are not all that overwhelming."? "Wikipedia is not paper."? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The arguments for keeping articles on highways, (some articles are about "highways" as short as 0.3 miles} could be applied as well to mailboxes. Should we have articles on each of them? "The mailbox was installed and marked by the U.S. Postal System, for the use of persons wishing to send mail. It is part of the U.S. Postal system, established in the 18th century. It is a part of the main skeleton system of the U.S. Postal Service and a valid enough topic in covering the mail system." The same arguments could be applied to city streets, power pylons, bridges, drainage ditches, salt trucks, school buses, locomotives, railroad tracks, airport runways, undergound pipelines, television masts, fire engines, schools, libraries, dormitories, municipal wells, sewage plants, and all other infrastructure. They were installed by authorities to benefit the puiblic and given identifying names or numbers. Would you vote to keep all such articles absent independent reliable sources with substantial coverage? Or don't you LIKE them as much as roads? Inkpaduta 15:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • If there were a group of mailboxes so important that the state declared them "State mailboxes", numbered them, maintained them, and wrote them into law...then sure. The argument isn't for all roads, it's for a particularly important subset of roads. Regardless of whether or not they're notable enough to include in the encyclopedia, state highways certainly aren't trivial. --UsaSatsui 16:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, like the others said - see "Wikipedia is not paper." • master_sonLets talk 16:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The "keep" side keeps using that argument. I do not think it means what you think it means. The argument isn't "there's no room for roads" or "roads aren't a suitable topic.". They're arguing whether or not state highways are notable in and of themselves, without anything else going for them. --UsaSatsui 16:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    Comment. Looking at your laundry list, of those that are individually designated, I answer yes. Many schools/libraries have articles on WP. All runways are mentioned on their respective airports article. Dormitories are also mentioned on their respective universities article. Many of your examples such as power pylons and drainage ditches are not indiviudally identified so making an article. --Holderca1 23:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. If there were hundreds of millions of these state routes that were very short like this one, then yes, your mailbox or drainage ditch analogy would prove apt. If Minnesota labeled every stretch of pavement as a state highway, then your comparison would prove apt. But there aren't, and Minnesota doesn't. We're talking about a part of limited, specific system, not every single foot of pavement. Here's a more valid comparison, look at the thousands of little podunk towns that have just one source, census data. Those have the same amount of outside coverage and locality as this route. Yet we have thousands of those articles! However, note that those incorporated towns that have articles are all a part of a subset of a much, much larger group of locales--they're incorporated towns, recognized by the state government. We don't have articles on every single crossroads, every single subdivision, every single spot in the state. In both cases, we're talking about a specific group of geographic entities (state highways and incorporated towns) that the state has recognized to be significant enough to place into a specific subset (by numbering or incorporation) out of a larger group (of all of the roads or all of the named locales, subdivisions, etc). --HowardSF-U­-T-C- 16:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Most of these articles are sourced and referenced. There are WikiProjects for many states' highways. The Minnesota goverment decided long ago that highways were important enough to be laid out in the Constitution. If state highway articles did not belong here, the very first ones would have been deleted long ago. Why is this just now coming up? The "road is too short" argument is ridiculous. How long is long enough? How about we delete all municipality articles if their population isn't high enough? --Sable232 21:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, as stated by many before me, ALL state highways are notable. Gateman1997 22:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. As stated by others above, numbered highways are notable. Are they any less notable than most of the articles on WP? See specific episodes of the Simpsons, or Pokemon characters. Are we running out of server space? --Holderca1 23:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep notability of secondary highways is clear, in a well-sourced and referenced article. This is yet another case where WP:NOT#DIR is being abused to mean "anything that I think doesn't deserve an article for which I cannot or will not provide an actual reason". Alansohn 23:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, see my comments here for same reasoning. Also, we can't delete votes articles just because you don't like it. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 00:46, 11 February 2007 (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.