Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstate 50

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 redirect to Interstate Highway System#Primary routes . MBisanz ^talk 22:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 50 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

We don't have articles about stuff that doesn't exist. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Merge while that isn't true (Unicorn, for example) this page serves no purpose as a seperate article and could be added as a single line in Interstate Highway System--Talain (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Unicorns are real mythical creatures, though... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Merge with Interstate Highway System. This is useful information. Georgia guy (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't see anything useful. You don't need an article to point out it doesn't exist. Also, there is nothing stopping them from putting Interstate 50 in Oklahoma, US 50 doesn't enter that state. --Holderca1 ^talk 23:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Also to note, US Highways and Interstates can coexist in the same state, see Interstate 24 and U.S. Route 24. --Holderca1 ^talk 23:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as useless. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Wikipedia having no article with this title can lead people to thinking that there is an Interstate 50 but that Wikipedia just has no article on it. Wikipedia needs some info on the fact that there's no Interstate 50. Georgia guy (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you suggesting we create articles for everything that doesn't exist, so people don't mistakenly think it exists? Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...such as... Georgia guy (talk) 23:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interstate 60 Dave (talk) 03:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • A39293673727 road, it doesn't exist, but people may think it exists because we don't have an article on it. Edit: I forgot A39293673728 road Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Who would think such a road exists?? Many people know major interstate highways end in 5 or 0, but might want to find Interstate 50. Prior to when I created info on this article, Wikipedia had absolutely no mention of the fact that there is no Interstate 50. Georgia guy (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is no mention because it doesn't exist? Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Plenty of online sites do mention the fact that there is no Interstate 50, so why can't Wikipedia?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you are so insistent on mentioning it, why not take heed from the first comment in this discussion? Jenuk1985 | Talk 00:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- We don't need a separate article on this. At most, mention why the number "50" has not been used in the Interstate Highway System article in the numbering section. --Polaron | Talk 00:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is original research on a nonexistent subject. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Interstate Highway System. While we have and want articles on things that don't exist, an article on an nonexistent Interstate highway would detail the route, plans for construction, reasons for cancellation of the project and other facts that go beyond a brief explanation of something that wasn't even planned. The information needn't grow beyond what's there, and the article on the Interstate Highway System can easily accommodate it. The redirect will get interested readers to the right place. Fg2 (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Interstate Highway System per Fg2. Thryduulf (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unnessecary to have article on nonexistient road. Dough4872 (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. - Merge this information into Interstate Highway System with a redirect to the appropriate section of the article. Note: While the reason I-50 was never created is correct, that rule has been broken as NCDOT has both I-74 and US-74 in the state of North Carolina. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There's nothing to merge or redirect to be honest. I could think of billions of combination of numbers to stick in front of the word "Interstate". "Interstate 12,656 does not exist." "Interstate 12,657 does not exist"... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Incorrect. The numbering plan would not allow for the creation of Interstate 12,656, so there should never be an article on that Interstate. However, the original numbering plan said that all multiples of 5 from Interstate 5 to Interstate 95 would be MAJOR routes with the exception of Interstate 50, which would not be used. This is a specific, verifiable, encyclopedic fact that needs to be presented in Wikipedia. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you declare something to be incorrect in this way, you should back it up with verifiable cited material rather than opinion and unsupported statement. You wrote "the original numbering plan said that all multiples of 5 from Interstate 5 to Interstate 95 would be MAJOR routes with the exception of Interstate 50, which would not be used". What is the original numbering plan? Do you mean the "Yellow Book" of 1955, mentioned in passing at the FHWA here? Is there a page in that book you can cite? Does it read "all multiples of 5 from Interstate 5 to Interstate 95 would be MAJOR routes with the exception of Interstate 50"? Why doesn't it mention Interstate 60, also unused? Are you sure that Juliancolton's honest statement of opinion is really something that can be found incorrect? This title is not about anything that exists, real or imaginary, period. It is something that may deserve mentioning in a sentence or two, but the only US Government website mention yet found relating to "Interstate 50" is http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/faq.htm#question19, which is an FAQ, assumedly a list of arbitrary answers to emails the highway administration gets. No article or redirected title should exist for a non-existent subject that is mentioned one place in an informal list of frequently asked questions. Or maybe I am "incorrect" in holding that opinion. Sswonk (talk) 06:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for not providing an in-line citation to back up my statement. The reference is Federal Highway Administration. "FHWA Route Log and Finder List". Retrieved July 1, 2009. Quote: AASHTO developed the procedure for numbering the Interstate routes, with Bureau of Public Roads (BPR) concurrence, in 1957 This reference goes on to describe the numbering system in detail. It does not allow for any interstate to have more than three digits. Could you please provide a reliable reference that says it is even remotely possible to have an Interstate 12,656? I ask because reliable references have been given that document the purposeful decision not to create either Interstate 50 or Interstate 60. This fact cannot be disputed. This fact is of value to have within Wikipedia. The establishment of a redirect from Interstate 50 to wherever this information is merged to is within Wikipedia quidelines. Please see WP:Guide to deletion#Recommendations and outcomes. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The value of the information is not the subject of this discussion, which relates to the creation of an article title which solely concerns it. The editor's use of Interstate 12,656 was an obvious exaggeration meant to illustrate the point that unneeded, pointless, trivial redirects in all fields of knowledge might be created if the arguments for a redirect of "Interstate 50" had weight. I appreciate that you provided the link, but you use it to support your red herring argument against the exaggerated "Interstate 12,656" illustration. It doesn't answer my questions, which relate to the statement you made about "the exception of Interstate 50", and the text of the linked page does not contain mention of "Interstate 50". Since the information has already been merged into the Interstate Highway System article, where it can be worked on and updated in the future, a pertinent Wikipedia guideline here is WP:Merge and delete. That discusses GFDL problems relating to attribution history which may be complicated. This article has a single fact and six edits, all of which can be handled easily if there are GFDL concerns, which I honestly don't see. I do however find that the title falls under the category of "confusing or objectionable" mentioned at WP:MAD. This is the crux of the problem: the title is about something that doesn't exist. Please see my Comment section near the bottom of this discussion. It would be objectionable to have a redirect from, for example, Penguins of the Northern Hemisphere. Merely maintaining such a title is "confusing or objectionable" because it supports the possible existence of such creatures in a potential reader's mind. Having a list of search results appear after searching a term immediately alerts the reader to the fact that the title doesn't exist. Any redirects with titles of things or concepts that don't exist is wrong. Sswonk (talk) 04:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Interstate Highway System#Primary routes. The content of the article has been referenced to a reliable source (a section on a FHWA website); however, we really don't need a standalone, permastub article on this. The absence of an Interstate 50 is referred to in the "Primary routes" section of the Interstate Highway System article, and I think simply moving what's in this article into that section as an explanation of why there is no I-50 is adequate. – TMF 02:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the interstate system article — quite a likely target for people interested in reading about various interstates. I'm a US maps person, and I'm still surprised that there isn't one, so I'm sure that people who don't know much about US highways nationwide would expect such a number. For you who aren't familiar with this system — primary interstates are always one or two digits, and the major east-west interstates all end with a 0, so the absence of an Interstate 50 is much more significant than the absence of an Interstate 23. Nyttend (talk) 03:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Dave (talk) 03:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per TMF and Nyttend. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agreement with Rschen. No need to redirect, in Interstate Highway System#Primary routes cite AASHTO guideline #3 here and that will be enough. Someone could just as easily write an article about a sequel to Interstate 60 that doesn't exist. Wouldn't redirect that either. Sswonk (talk) 04:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarifying my statement, I meant to convey that a sequel to the film doesn't exist, not that the highway doesn't exist. Several here point out that a title of something that is nonexistent for any article, even any redirect, is pointless. "Interstate 260 is a film sequel that has not been made." "Interstate 50 (film) redirects here. For the nonexistent prequel to the film, see Interstate 60."? A redirect is also unnecessary as stated. Sswonk (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sswonk and Holderca1 -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirectto Interstate Highway System#Primary routes - worthwhile info, absence of 50 is already mentioned in that para but could be expanded. Perhaps also add a note in the introductory section of List of Interstate Highways.PamD (talk) 27 June 2009 - forgot to sign at the time
• I would suggest the article or section be no longer than the highway itself. If the highway does not currently exist, neither should the article. Eauhomme (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'll find a gold mine for deletion at Category:Unbuilt buildings and structures where WP has plenty of articles on things that don't currently exist. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:WAX. Sswonk (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• But... but... there was an I-50! --NE2 02:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - to US-50. I found lots of sources that use the term "Interstate 50" mistakenly to refer to US-50. Others mentioning I-50 are fiction, and the mention in them is trivial. Sebwite (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But what about mistaken references to Idaho State Highway 50? --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to a list, using presnt content as a footnote or in intro. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yes, anyone can edit the encyclopedia, but if it ain't encyclopedic, it should be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to US-50 and to Interstate Highway System#Primary routes, where this information would be useful additions. And, contra the nom, we have plenty of articles about things that don't exist: unicorn (as noted above), dragons, and other pseudofauna, Captain Kirk, Sherlock Holmes, and other fictitious characters, various paranormal phenomena, and (in some people's opinions) the moon-landing, the death of Elvis, and even most religion-related articles, including God. If it generates sufficient WP:V or WP:N even if it doesn't exist in real life, it can exist at WP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was wondering how long it would take for someone to mention we have an article on God! Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Juliancolton answered this very succinctly at the top of the page: "Unicorns are real mythical creatures, though..". You spent some time listing things that exist but you are confusing "exist" with "are real". Of course God, Kirk, unicorns all have articles, just like Winston Smith. That is not the point of this deletion discussion: we don't need articles about subjects that could exist but don't like: "The planet Beta Carlossuarez46 was thought of as a good name for a planet but no one has discovered and named such a planet yet." Countless articles and redirects exist in abstentia in this manner, i.e. novels and movie sequels that could have been produced, relations between defunct countries before air travel or long-distance communication whereby representatives of the now long-gone nations never communicated, and titles like this one about roads that never existed and won't. Repeat: there is no reason for a stub or a redirect about this or any such ethereal, made-up topic. Sswonk (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nom's rationale: "We don't have articles about stuff that doesn't exist." There are some cases when there can be an article about something that does not exist, if the lack of existence is notable, example Phaeton (hypothetical planet).
  • But is it? --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But again, that's a real hypothetical planet. Interstate 50 does not exist, never existed, and was never thought to have existed. There are an infinite number of roads that don't exist. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't exist, true, but it did exist for a day per NE2's comment. More significantly though the fact that Why doesn't the Interstate Highway have an I-50? is included in a list of frequently asked questions is evidence that people expect it to exist. Indeed until this AfD I had always presumed that there would be an I-50, and I'd be amazed if I was the only person to think this. While there are thousands of road numbers that don't exist that could exist, there is not evidence that people expect them to exist. Thryduulf (talk) 08:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even so, it's indiscriminate, trivial info. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It isn't hugely important, which is why it should only be a redirect to the main article about the numbering system. It isn't indiscriminate though - that would be a collection of a large number of unconnected bits of trivial information only tangentially related to the subject of the article. The fact that there is no I-50, despite the fact that one would logically exist, is directly related to the numbering system of the Interstate Highways, which is why this title should redirect there so people can find the information they are looking for in the most logical place for it. Thryduulf (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The Interstate Highway System article already mentions that there is no I-50. That is all that needs to be said. A redirect for I-50 is unnessecary since it is a nonexistient road. Wikipedia does not have articles or redirects on things that do not exist. For example, there are no articles on Maryland Route 9 or Middlesex County, Delaware because both these items do not exist. Dough4872 (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I only merged that info in response to this article being on Afd. Georgia guy (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then, there is no point for the I-50 article to exist and a redirect is totally unnessecary as described above. Dough4872 (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Expanding on the comment by Dough4872, several of the statements in this discussion supporting creation of a redirect for the term "Interstate 50" contain arguments that might be summed up as "people might wonder why there is no Interstate 50". This line of thinking could also support inclusion of redirects for countless other titles, when a search engine and a bit of reading will nearly always produce the correct answer. Examples of similar non-existent titles are Atlas IV (a rocket in the Atlas series with that name does not exist, though Atlas III and Atlas V do), Ford Model D (and others between Model C and Model T which never existed), and Area code 621 (along with dozens of other unassigned codes). The problem is not that it is possible that a reader might think there is a topic called this and we are not responding, it is that if this redirect is created then by the logic used in its support redirects should be created for all conceivable search terms. Someone might search for Penguins of the Northern Hemisphere (evolution includes no such birds). This is what search engines are for. Otherwise, there would be a redirect for every possible three-digit U.S. telephone area code that has yet to be assigned, every state highway number in every state that has skipped those numbers, and on and on ad infinitum. The arguments in support of a redirect make assumptions and contain possibly true but nevertheless unsupported statements like "The fact that there is no I-50, despite the fact that one would logically exist, is directly related to the numbering system of the Interstate Highways" (how?) and "I found lots of sources that use the term 'Interstate 50' mistakenly" (where?). Again, search engines serve this purpose and the subtitle of this site is not "The free encyclopedia that has titles on every conceivable search term so you will always be directed to what you are looking for instantly based on the vast intuitive powers of its editors". Sswonk (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Interstate Highway System#Primary routes as a plausible search term. --NE2 07:50, 2 July 2009 (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.