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 Snow Keep. As usual, this close does not preclude the opening of a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

K-267 (Kansas highway)

K-267 (Kansas highway) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable road. No claim to notability. Single ref is a database entry with no in-depth coverage which appears to be a primary source. Searching likely sources (such as http://www.kslegislature.org/li/) doesn't find anything. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep—state highways have generally been considered notable, based on past precedents at WP:ROADOUTCOMES, WP:USRD/P and the proposed WP:NGEO. The article is new enough that it hasn't had time to develop, and giving that time would not harm the encyclopedia. However, deleting a portion of the encyclopedia's complete coverage of state highways in Kansas, leaving a hole in that coverage, would harm the encyclopedia. Imzadi 1979 → 03:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:5P: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." As part of this, major roads should be included, with state roads considered notable. Even short state highways are notable enough for articles. Dough4872 15:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:5P says nothing about major roads. It does, however, say that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It's quite simple - give me some significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources that verify that this road is notable and I'll strike my !vote --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the statement, "Google Maps, which I've found tends to be chock full of mistakes" is of course WP:OR, but the real point is that the argument is presented as if wp:reliable sources are or should be inerrant.  See WP:Inaccuracy and Dewey Defeats Truman.  Here is an NPR news report from today that shows that Google maps are the benchmark for the reliability of digital maps, [1].  Unscintillating (talk) 01:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Come on people, it's not hard - all I'm looking for is some significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources, and for people to stop taking it so personally and appealing to emotion when they find none. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus says that state highways are notable - and consensus is policy. --Rschen7754 20:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You're basically calling for deletion in contravention of community consensus that was established at a wider forum than a single AFD, so you'd do well to hold a highly-publicised RFC on this topic before attempting to have this one deleted. Consensus can change, but until and unless it does, this should definitely stay. Nyttend (talk) 06:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm really not trying to tread on anyone's toes here or rub people up the wrong way, but I genuinely don't understand where this consensus comes from, because it's not what I can see in WP:USRD/NT! That states "Interstate, U.S., and primary state highways are notable. However, that does not mean an article about them will pass wikipedia notability guidelines.", "Each article should establish its own notability." and "Secondary state highways and county highways that are part of a statewide system ... may or may not be sufficiently notable to merit a unique article."
You're saying "it's consensus, we discussed it after many AfDs", but where can I find discussions that lead to that consensus? Surely, consensus to keep implies it should be easy and trivial to find sources and verify notability! Under WP:N, I see specific notability criteria about Academics, Astronomical objects, Books, Events, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People, Sports and athletes and Web content. Nothing about roads.
I agree that redirecting to a "list" article is a better solution where the main article is little more than what you can see on a map (which this one is), and WP:USRD/NT seems to suggest this is an appropriate cause of action. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USRD/P has a fairly exhaustive list of XfDs, if that's what you're looking for. I have suggested that my fellow USRD project members and I take the Precedents page and distill it into something that is easier to understand, but as of yet, that has not happened. –Fredddie™ 15:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting figures. I see out of 142 articles sent to AfD, 47 were kept, or just over 33%. Not much of a consensus! I'm really quite annoyed that I've tried to question the status quo with legitimate concerns, quoting policy and figures to substantiate my argument, and been met with (IMHO) unsatisfactory counter-arguments. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the ones that were merged or deleted were county routes and local roads, which are generally considered not notable enough to have their own articles. Dough4872 16:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. To take all five "deletes" that appear to be about state highways — (1) Arizona State Route 48 never existed; (2) Pennsylvania Route 760 was thought to be some sort of hoax; and PA 3006 is a secondary route and not at all a standard state highway like K-267; (4) SR 3017 in Farrell is about a small chunk of a route to which the criticisms of PA 3006 apply; and (5) M-2 (Michigan highway) is about a nonexistent road. None of the linked discussions resulted in the deletion of an article about a state highway whose existence was proven. Nyttend (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Articles on such highways can indeed become well developed. Here's another example. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 04:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Roads attract significant attention in the U.S.  One way that roads are used is to drive automobiles.  The citizens want their government(s) to pay attention to public roads, and keep them in repair.  Even small holes three- to six-inches deep become a matter of urgency.  If a road has an 8-inch drop off the height of a stair step, emergency vehicles are dispatched to close the road and re-route traffic.  The government keeps records and studies about road usage and traffic accidents.  In order for citizens to know where to find public roads to drive on, an elaborate system of maps exists, so that maps are sold at most filling stations and large retailers.  There are a variety of independent reliable publishers of maps that show the roads in detail.  In the electronic age, maps have become even more widely disseminated in electronic devices, with computerized voices that can talk about public roads.  The U.S. Post Office is another major institution in the U.S. that gives extensive attention to roads—the entire system of U.S. Mail uses a system called the "street address" that is tied to roads, which is a design that goes back more than a hundred years.  Roads are often mentioned on evening news reports in the U.S. to describe where various events occurred.  The point is that public roads in the U.S. will always easily pass WP:GNG.  Another point, elements of the gazetteer are useful as short articles.  Such articles need only be more than a statement of existence.  The issue for Wikipedia with roads is WP:NOT.  For the current case, at least one cartographer considers this to be a major road; as well, all state roads are generally agreed to be major roads.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2012 (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.
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/K-267_(Kansas_highway)
No tags for this post.