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 no consensus. Cirt (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of auxiliary Interstate Highways (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

This list duplicates several articles without separate utility. The list of primary Interstate Highways already lists all of these highways directly or by way of the appropriate disambiguation pages. The entire lead above the table duplicates much of the main article on Interstate Highways. The table is bloat and takes several minutes on a broadband Internet connection to load. The lead contains several unsourced claims, and/or WP:OR. There are MOS breaches in the formatting of the prose and table. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Interstate Highways. Similar to how List of primary Interstate Highways redirects there, the auxiliary list should redirect also as all the auxiliary routes are listed there. ---Dough4872 20:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, the Auxiliary Interstate Highways are not all listed there. For example, the proposed re-direct target only has a link to I-215, three freeways exist with that name. Are you proposing to merge the lists?Dave (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could merge the auxiliary route list in with the primary route list to have all interstates listed together. ---Dough4872 00:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Yes, the article is really trashed up, but I'm not convinced that redirecting the article will preserve the information. --Rschen7754 21:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Complete merge of the table, with no loss of (reliably sourced) information. Failing that, keep and cleanup. --Rschen7754 08:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepMerge I do see value in having a centralized list of Auxiliary Interstate Highways and to the best of my knowledge this list is not duplicated elsewhere. If this list is redundant to another list, by all means one should redirect to the other. I would also be OK with the re-direct Dough is proposing, provided a content merge is done first. I do agree this article is in desperate need of help. It has both formatting issues and two of the items listed under "Exceptions" are not notable, and should be pruned. (They are not unique either, several more identical situations to those exist.) Dave (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it a little more, a content merge wouldn't' be that difficult, and a merge would eliminate some redundancy.Dave (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep not sure a merge would maintain the integrity of the information included in this list. As it stands this article includes more in depth information than the List of Interstate Highways as well as additional information that article is currently lacking such as Interstate 238. Gateman1997 (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and clean up formatting errors on the grid, on account of WP:LIST. I'm not convinced a merge and redirect would be appropriate, as it would make for an extraordinarily long article, and delete is not really the anser in my opinion on account of WP:OUTCOMES insofar as roads are concerned. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:40, 16 January 2010 (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.