Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unused highway

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. Nishkid64 19:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unused highway

Unused highway (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

term apparently coined by a couple of editors for use in Wikipedia, the definition of a neologism. A Google search of "unused highway" reveals official sources using different meanings than the implied, unsourced, one in the article. A companion article was twice submitted to AfD (as Ghost ramp) before being moved to a similarly-named place and will soon accompany this in AfD. Delete. B.Wind 03:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep: Per the prior [1] [2] two discussions, the results were no consensus and keep but rename. The last AFD was also closed not that long ago; therefore I submit that this AFD be speedy closed. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The second AfD was improperly closed by a non-admin who actually proposed the deletion. At no time was there a complete discussion as to the validity of unused highway. B.Wind 03:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Nonsense. It's been discussed prior that his closure was proper. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Do you have a link to the deletion review? B.Wind 04:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • With no supporting evidence from B.Wind or a statement why it should be deleted, I move that it be speedy kept. This is also getting old; I propose a hold of six months before another AFD can be filed. Discussions can be held, but there is no reason why we must have duplication of tags, AFD banners, and all the assorted stuff cluttering the page and its histories. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't think a such hold can be done though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
        • That's a shame. As that, it is a Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Renominations and recurring candidates waste of our time --
        • "Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an article, but repeated nominations for deletion are not necessarily evidence that an article should be deleted, and in some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete."
        • "Renomination costs additional volunteer time and server resources, on top of the original nomination." Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
          • This is the first nomination of an article of this name for deletion, not a renomination; therefore the above argument does not apply. B.Wind 04:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
            • If you chose to read [3] [4], you would see that as a result of the last AFD, it was decided to move the page to unused highway. Therefore, this AFD is the third in the series. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Regardless of the article's past afd's, after examining the article it is pretty clear that it should be deleted as being unverifiable original research. There are two references in the article, however neither of them ever use the term 'unused highway.' One does use the term 'stub ramp' once, but the term isn't defined and its meaning as given in the article is inferred. Without any valid sources this should go. --The Way 03:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep; "unused highway" is a simple phrase like "list of cities" or "fauna of Puerto Rico". If you have a better phrase that covers the same scope and is either an obvious phrase or defined in a reliable source, please suggest one. --NE2 03:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I have a better idea: if you can find such a term that covers the catch-all in this article and cite it, I will gladly withdraw my nomination. The so-called "tautology" cited by Seicer is not the case here, as a revisitation of the term will make clear.B.Wind 04:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • ODOT calls it a stub. Similar to stub ramp. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Does ODOT call it an unused highway? B.Wind 04:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Stub street, same thing. Do you propose that we now move Unused highway to stub street? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • The fact that an "unused highway" is a highway that is unused needs no citing. Would you like me to cite dictionary definitions of "unused" and "highway"? --NE2 04:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't think he'll be satisfied with any ruling. I'm finding sources to be safe so that this nonsense can be ended for once and for all. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I found many sources that pretty much defines the term in usage; therefore, will you please withdraw the nomination and spare the rest of us this repetitive process? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Seicer; folks had a problem with the term "ghost ramp", and insisted on "unused highway"; now they want to kill the entry entirely on that basis? Many of these ramps were mentioned previously in separate highway entries. This article serves to collate the data. As for original research, most of the items are cited with either supporting documentation or satellite photos that serve to verify the assertations. That hardly qualifies as original research. --Mhking 04:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • keep maybe merge with closed highway or some other legal term from the Highway traffic act or more technical term from a jurisprudence. --CyclePat 04:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: Here are a couple references that could be help the referencing of this article:
  • Keep. This is borderlining on a bad-faith nomination. If this article needs a different name, then that's okay -- bring it up at WP:RFC to get some outside input. AFD is not the place for such a discussion, though. A quick Windows Live search on "unused highway" turns up some U.S. state government web pages dealing with legislation, so the term is out there. -/- Warren 05:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Can we speedy keep this since the article now has a bijillion citations towards every term, word and letter? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable topic. Sometimes Wikipedians have to come up with an article title themselves, if there is no globally agreed upon term. If a consensus emerges that a different title is better, then it can be renamed (again), but this needs to be kept in some form. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Who really needs a definition of "unused highway", or a banal discussion of the various obvious reasons why one might close a highway? This isn't a phrase that needs definition - put "unused" and "highway" together, and they mean exactly what one might expect. I can perhaps see a list of notable unused highways - considerable stretchs of major highway that have been closed, are unused, etc. - but why define or discuss such a commonplace phrase? What's next - "broken sidewalk"? "Muddy path?" --Brianyoumans 06:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • So... you are in agreement that the definition is a tautology. Therefore, your position would be more in agreement with keep rather than delete, since both pages contain relevant information. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't see how this is in any way a tautology. I am saying this is like having an article on "blue bathrobes" - which is to say, bathrobes which are blue. This combination of words has no special meaning, and neither does it define a subject which needs an article to explain it. Brianyoumans 07:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Would a merge, rather than a delete, be more appropriate? The List could be merged into the primary article, with a brief overview (per what is there currently) to explain the different types? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
          • First of all, as Brian has already mentioned, this term is not a tautology. Secondly, even if it were that would in no way imply that the article should be kept; there is no policy that says tautologies are inherently notable, the very idea that something's being a tautology somehow makes it encyclopedic is ridiculous. Also, as Brian argues, there is no reason why 'unused highway' is any more important, encyclopedic and notable than 'red cars,' 'unused airport runways' or 'broken sidewalks.' The term is probably even unsuitable for Wiktionary. If there are notable unused highways then feel free to rename this to 'List of Notable Unused Highways,' that is if you can establish clear and objective criter for determining the notability of such highways and the topic (eg. find sources that state that this particular unused highway is important because...) --The Way 07:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
            • (Edit conflict) Per the last two AFDs and extensive discussions, the choosing of the word is the most appropriate terminology as it is the most _direct_ and _simple_. It's unfortunate that you were not a main participant in those prior discussions (per standard search, please correct if I am mistaken), because those discussions led to the renaming of the article. Renaming it again, or moving it to satisfy your definition or idea is simply spinning the wheel, and Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Renominationswasting everyones time and resources --
            • "Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an article, but repeated nominations for deletion are not necessarily evidence that an article should be deleted, and in some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete."
            • "Renomination costs additional volunteer time and server resources, on top of the original nomination."
            • Per this AFD and the corresponding duplicate, a rough consensus has been made to keep the article since it has satisfied B.Wind's original criteria --
            • if you can find such a term that covers the catch-all in this article and cite it, I will gladly withdraw my nomination.
            • Any further discussion from that initial discussion is going off on a tangent (per what Brianyoumans started above) and is not inclusive to this AFD. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
          • I think that some of this could be merged to highway or some other similar place, as a description of what one can do with unwanted highways. I don't think much of this is useful for helping define what a notable unused highway is. One could of course use it to categorize the unused highways, but I'm not sure how useful that would be - how many highways have notably been turned into gardens? I think that would be up to the editors of the list, as to whether that would be a useful scheme of organization. Brianyoumans 07:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Has if you can find such a term that covers the catch-all in this article and cite it, I will gladly withdraw my nomination been satisfied? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It seems to me that the problems with this article are not specific to the article's title. You want a 'catch-all' for the information in the article, but I, and I believe the nominator and Brian, feel that the information itself isn't encyclopedic; it's not notable. The fact that a highway is unused does not make it notable. --The Way 08:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • That's not what he said here --
      • "[Unused highway] apparently coined by a couple of editors for use in Wikipedia, the definition of a neologism. A Google search of "unused highway" reveals official sources using different meanings than the implied, unsourced, one in the article."
      • It is quite appear ant that he did not do a "Google search" because my searches concluded many reliable sources from state transportation departments, along many others. It is not quite simply a term that "a couple of editors" conjured up.
      • Then, he amended the AFD to state --
      • "if you can find such a term that covers the catch-all in this article and cite it, I will gladly withdraw my nomination"
      • Both his original request and the amendment has been covered, therefore the AFD needs to be speedy kept. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - completely non-notable and unencyclopaedic topic. Looks like a term coined to link together a number of completely un-related bits of tarmac. - fchd 08:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete (and dare I say it, for the only encyclopedic reason that matters, which seems to have eluded all the "keepers" and most of the "deleters" here). This article is nothing more than a dicdef and a list of examples. Wikipedia is not a dictionary is a core policy which defines what it means for Wikipedia to be what it is. It is not negotiable. Zunaid©® 15:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Do you suggest then, that all lists be deleted, along with all corresponding pages that feature definitions from reliable sources? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of Wikipedia? It is negotiable, that's what the polls, AFD debates, etc. is for. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP per above --71Demon 17:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • SPEEDY KEEP per Seicer and above. V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 17:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: "[Unused highway] apparently coined by a couple of editors for use in Wikipedia, the definition of a neologism. A Google search of "unused highway" reveals official sources using different meanings than the implied, unsourced, one in the article."
  • It is quite appear ant that he did not do a "Google search" because my searches concluded many reliable sources from state transportation departments, along many others. It is not quite simply a term that "a couple of editors" conjured up.
  • Then, he amended the AFD to state --
  • "if you can find such a term that covers the catch-all in this article and cite it, I will gladly withdraw my nomination"
  • Both his original request and the amendment has been covered, therefore the AFD needs to be speedy kept. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article is heavily referenced with official sources, is written well enough to convey the essence of the topic, and the topic itself is notable enough for inclusion. Anyone disagreeing with that last statement should read the article on the Abandoned Pennsylvania Turnpike sections to see how much can be written about a highway that is now unused. And to anyone seriously debating the notability claim should remember that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia - "it is not bound by the same constraints as a paper encyclopedia or even most online encyclopedias". In other words, sure, it's a slightly obscure topic, but articles exist for much more obscure topics than this one. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, no "vote". Obviously this is just another in a long line of highway-related nominations (both the first two "ghost ramp" nominations and a number of others) that's going to end in no consensus. Obviously, it is a neologism coined by NE2 (I've never heard these referred to as "unused highways" before), but the term makes sense, and was done as a compromise for people who thought "ghost ramp" and "stub ramp" were neologisms. I feel the concept of whatever you want to call this phenomena is notable, for much the same reasons TMF stated. -- NORTH talk 20:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Subject is encyclopedic. Name is a compromise based on objections to "ghost ramp", which is in fairly common use but hasn't been documented (to my knowledge) in a sufficiently reliable source. Existing title is a self-evident English phrase, which needs no explicit definition. --EngineerScotty 21:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There are obviously sections of paved roadway (and ramps and tunnels) which were built but not yet placed in service, or which have been removed from service. Tax dollars were spent on them. They are used for making movies and disaster drills. They tie up resources. The only dispute I can see is over what to call them, and that does not reasonably lead to deletion. There are multiple verifiable and reliable sources presented in the article to show it is not "unverified original research." Edison 21:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per (most recently) Edison and EngineerScotty. Newyorkbrad 23:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • comment: Closed Highway appears to be a more poppular term which is even used, most recently with our Big North Eastern Winter Storm of January 2007 that we are currently experiencing, on the weather network. Again, as per my above vote to keep, I would merge to "Closed highway"... a term as I demonstrated within the precedence that is used by Police during chases. It is also a term that is used during "accidents" involving deaths, or serious truck spills, or many other incidents where Police decided to "close" a highway. This term has many legal implications as well... if you where riding/driving on a "closed highway" vs. a "highway". Smarten up! By taking a look at the nominator's user page, it is obvious he has a general grudge for compound worded articles. Two word terms do exist and can be used in wikipedia... like Cheeseburger and Motorboat which used to be two words. Sailing ship, Aircraft carrier, Human sexual behavior, The Light at the End of the World, Comparison of layout engines, Prophets of Islam are all compound worded articles. Should those be deleted. This is boardering a lack of wikipedia goodfaith and the ability to discuss improvements to an article. I vote that the nominator should do 1 week of work for a case at WP:AMA... "A couple of wikirules, must learn you!" "A Category:AMA Requests for Assistance visit must you!" --CyclePat 00:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Very encyclopedic transporation topic. --Oakshade 04:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this is a valid, albeit underdeveloped, topic.-- danntm T C 04:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Seicer, EngineerScotty, et. al.—HowardSF-U­-T-C- 18:54, 20 January 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.