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, as this wasn't really a deletion discussion anyway. I also see no consensus below for a merge, but that's what article talk pages are for, so normal editing begins...NOW. postdlf (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of Maryland Route 200 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Do not need separate article on history of route. Like the opposition article, the information can be condensed and covered in a section of the Maryland Route 200 article. Dough4872 23:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although the 2 articles could be merged having a separate article relating to the history of the Road is ok as long as there is sufficient information and sources to do so and there seems to be plenty here. --Kumioko (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge We don't need a separate history article for a state highway article. No other highway article in the U.S. has this. --Rschen7754 01:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opposition to Maryland Route 200. --Rschen7754 01:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Summarize, merge and redirect for the same reasons I gave at the previous AfD. Imzadi 1979 → 02:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge The MD 200 article is not so large that the content of this article needs to be split out of it.  VC  16:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The MD 200 article is 77K long and the History of MD 200 article is 32K long, so the merged article would probably be more than 100K. Racepacket (talk) 09:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if all the fluff was deleted from MD 200, the merged article would be much shorter. --Rschen7754 09:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This article was created when applying WP:SPLIT on July 23, 2009. Recently, I attempted to improve the article by added a proper lead, adding a construction history section and conformed to WP:SS by repeating the lead as the "History" section of Maryland Route 200. I then nominated the article for GA, which drew the wrath of User:Rschen7754. His argument is that highways cannot have their history covered in an article separate from the main article on the highway. He demands that the historical, political and sociological aspects of a policy policy debate that has lasted three decades can only be viewed only through the distorted prism of the "highway buffs" that staff WikiProject U.S. Roads. His remarks on the talk page show a two-step plan: first to merge the the MD 200 article togther with the two daughter articles, and then to drastically edit the combined article back to minimize coverage of the controversy. His comrade Imzadi1979 proposed for after the merger "My serious suggestion is that if anything additional is added from here out to the articles, something minor is removed. For every new piece of information, a minor detail is removed, and transferred to the talk page. Every quotation, especially all of the block quotes, needs to be examined. Most of them should be paraphrased and summarized." This is exactly the opposite of WP:SPLIT, WP:SS and WP:EVENT all of which support in-depth coverage of this topic as a stand-alone article. Instead of bragging that other controversial highway articles give only brief coverage to such disputes, we all should be asking whether there is a systematic pro-highway bias in Wikipedia's coverage of transportation controveries. Finally, I wish to note that WikiProject U.S. Roads frequently applies WP:SPLIT and WP:SS to generate separate state-specific articles for each state's segment of long-distance U.S. roads, even when they don't need to be split on account of article size. Racepacket (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please discuss the article, and not other editors? Thanks. Imzadi 1979 → 06:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify a factual error, it is not the policy of USRD to superfluously split articles, but rather the opposite. See Talk:Interstate 8#Merge proposal. --Rschen7754 06:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- The main problem with the Opposition article that I saw that made it worth deleting was that the subject of the article was biased. That is not the case here. The question here is whether it is better to put the content of the discussion on the history of the route in the article, or whether the article is improved by summarizing and putting more detailed information in a separate article. I disagree with Rschen7754 when he states that since no other U.S. roads articles have history subarticles that this one shouldn't either. -- Algorerhythms (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You fail to answer the question of why this article should remain separate. --Rschen7754 20:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue to expand the article if it is kept. Racepacket (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not need expansion, it needs the trimming of unnecessary information. Dough4872 03:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If editors what to spend their time producing articles documenting Maryland state roads, I applaud them. But other editors want to write about Maryland politics and public policy debates, which should be valued on Wikipedia as well. In most states, a highway of this nature would have an interstate highway designation, but because of the financing and timing of this highway, it was recently given only a state route designation. (The freeway segment immediately to the west of the toll portion is Interstate 370.) So this highway, and its history, is much more complex than the other state highways in Maryland. Given the number of press articles over thirty years, it is clearly notable.Racepacket (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are highways more notable than MD 200 that are not split into several articles describing the history, route description, etc. Dough4872 23:33, 20 March 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.