Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special routes of U.S. Route 76

Add links
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 no consensus. The arguments to keep here are numerically in a substantial majority, but they are considerably weaker than the arguments to delete and (especially) merge; so we are left with no consensus. It is a basic principle of Wikipedia that notability is demonstrated by coverage in independent, secondary, reliable sources. And we have created specific guidelines to cover cases where sources may be hard to come by. Nobody has made a persuasive argument that anything besides GNG or NLIST should apply here, and nobody has provided substantive evidence that this topic meets either of those guidelines. A lot of the argumentation is outright wikilawyering that I'm not going to even bother to discuss; anyone not involved with this dispute can see it for what it is. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Special routes of U.S. Route 76

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Special routes of U.S. Route 76 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, I can't find even a single reliable secondary source which covers the topic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - I will start off by saying that I personally do not like this kind of article: a bunch of routes that don't deserve their own article, but have to be mentioned somewhere. Previous discussions (WP:USRD/P) have established the notability, at least in some form, of all components of federal and state highway systems, however then we get articles like this. Which would be fine if it was just a paragraph or two describing the route, linked to Google Maps or a state government log, but then we wind up with editors wasting time adding junction lists for a 2 mile route, and routes that may have existed at least on paper but never made their way to the map.

Anyway - I am inclined to keep because at least some of them are detailed in government documents [1][2], and we are considered a gazetteer (WP:5P) - however if this got condensed to a table somewhere it wouldn't be a big deal. --Rschen7754 01:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:ROADOUTCOMES, though that is not policy, it does reflect precedent. --Rschen7754 03:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Time to set a new precedent then! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also FYI you are mistaken about WP:5P, it says we have features of gazetteers but it does not say we are a gazetteer. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Point of information about the "gazetteer" thing - The North Carolina Gazetteer by William S. Powell does not have entries for highways. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that from a WP:DUEWEIGHT perspective an article without reliable secondary sources has nothing in it which should be merged into another article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources are more than fine to say it existed and went from A to B, as I have done. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A question for another day perhaps. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Lists of special routes of a U.S. Highway are notable per the precedents set at WP:USRD/P. Dough4872 21:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:5P2, WP:5P5, and WP:NODEADLINE. The relevant text of 5P2 says "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person." (my emphasis). This list is neither controversial nor is it about a person, so what's with the urgency? The relevant text of 5P5 is "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time." Yes, eventually, this article should have citations to reliable sources, but it doesn't have to be right this second. Side note: I am the creator of this article, but if you look at the page history, I am not the creator of the content and my edits to the content are largely negligible. –Fredddie™ 23:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—per Fredddie's considered analysis. Also, to have complete coverage of the components of the United States Numbered Highway System and the various state highway systems, we'd need to have places for content such as this. Per WP:SIZE, we aren't always going to be able to merge stuff away into other articles, so collecting it into "listicles" such as this is a good option. Imzadi 1979 → 00:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge No, you can't just cite 5P to exempt yourself from the concept of AFD. I see no need for this to be a separate article from U.S. Route 76 so anything worth keeping should be merged there. USRD/P is NOT a policy or guideline that decides this page is notable, it's just an archive of AFDs that only has two entries in the last decade, but that does not exempt them from actual notability guidelines (WP:GEOROAD). Reywas92Talk 04:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying that roads should be forever exempted from AfD, that's ridiculous; but I see the path we're going down. All I'm asking is that the next deletion discussion starts after the first discussion dies off or closes. Not everybody here has the time or energy to pay attention to multiple concurrent AfDs. –Fredddie™ 13:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this is merged, it would be better to merge them to the state specific articles as applicable (ex. Laurens business loop gets merged to U.S. Route 76 in South Carolina). I don't have a strong opinion regarding merging vs keeping, but the contents should definitely be preserved in some form. Jumpytoo Talk 07:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge - Fails GNG (and NLIST). Sources here include a blog, Google maps, and various technical government reports. The descriptions of what buildings and what towns the routes pass and where they turn are not guided by any substantive secondary sources, just observations made by looking at maps. This wholly violates the spirit of no WP:OR, if not directly the letter (WP:SYNTH specifically). I also reject the above keep votes citing "no deadline" without any reasonable indication that substantive sourcing (like if a journalist actually wrote about these routes) actually exists. If that was how Wikipedia worked, AfD would not exist. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article does not fail GNG because at least some of the sources someone might consider primary instead of secondary comply with the policies about appropriate use of primary sources. VC 02:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which ones? CMD (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They're usable in the article but they generally don't contribute to notability as GNG says: ""Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." I don't see any exceptional primary sources there, can you point them out? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    References 2, 5, 13, 16, and 22 are works of a national-level policy-making organization of state officials. If they are primary sources, they are reputable sources and they make statement of facts. VC 02:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What does that have to do with them providing evidence of notability? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the GNG - "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. We cannot just pretend otherwise. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Should vs shall. Big difference. Floydian τ ¢ 18:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's look at other uses of "should" in our standards:
  • information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. -This is also from the GNG, so I guess writing standalone articles with no reliable information is perfectly acceptable? Because we only "should not" do it, not "shall not" do it?
  • From our policy page on WP:Copyrights - If a page contains material which infringes copyright, that material–and the whole page, if there is no other material present–should be removed. So I guess our legal copyright policy is also optional? Better tell the admin corps.
  • From WP:NPOV - Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. And we're allowed to act in bad faith and promote some views over others?
  • From WP:BLP - BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Oops, guess that's also optional! -Indy beetle (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff exists, sounds like those policies and guidelines were written by someone without technical proficiency in the English language. Shall=must, should=best practise. - Floydian τ ¢ 22:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does that not follow for the GNG? -Indy beetle (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per WP:CSC: Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of Dilbert characters or List of paracetamol brand names. Before creating a stand-alone list, consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a "parent" article. (Note that this criterion is never used for living people.). There's too much content here to merge into the main article on U.S. Route 76, and that content is worth preserving, so having an independent article is ideal. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Too much to merge into the slightly over 1000 word article how exactly? CMD (talk) 09:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The content would take up a disproportionate amount of the U.S. Route 76 article, compared to how important it is to the topic. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted we don't have any sources that would help evaluate how important they are to the topic, but if we do the solution to that would be to appropriately expand the Route 76 article. CMD (talk) 10:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    \We don't need to have a secondary source analyzing importance to include information -- basic editorial judgement isn't considered original research. Google Maps is not an ideal source, but it is a generally-reliable, secondary source for information about roads. We have enough reliably-sourced information to confirm that these routes exist, and some details about them; they clearly should be covered in some form on the encyclopedia. Merging them into the parent article would not improve the encyclopedia over keeping them in their own separate article, so I oppose doing so. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We do not have consensus that Google Maps is generally reliable We do actually have to have a source do the analysis, remember that analysis performed by editors falls under WP:OR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because a source requires some amount of effort to understand doesn't mean that citing it constitutes original research. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't make it generally reliable, you'd need a consensus for that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't need a consensus for a source to be reliable. Google Maps at WP:RSP is listed as "no consensus" and there have not been any well-attended discussions about using it for sourcing on articles on road routes.
    This article also has multiple sources that are not Google Maps. State DOTs are clearly reliable sources about the roads they maintain, and references to state DOTs are included for many of the routes on this page. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If its "no consensus then" its not generally reliable, is it? State DOT are primary sources, they don't confer any indication of notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Google Maps wouldn't indicate notability either! That's not the point here. We're allowed to use primary sources for article content. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "That's not the point here" you are participating in a notability discussion, that is literally the only point here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you have repeatedly misunderstood my argument here. The individual routes are not notable. No one is suggesting an article for them. We are discussing this list, and lists are held to different standards than normal articles. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're citing the style page. The list notability page criteria at WP:NLIST states Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. No reliable secondary source has been offered which provides significant coverage of the U.S. Route 76 special routes as a group. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I know exactly what page I'm citing. Note the part of WP:NLIST you quoted says "One accepted reason", which implies there are other accepted reasons. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. is also a part of NLIST, and NLIST indeed links to the style page I mentioned. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • This list doesn't fulfill any of those three criteria. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, it does. WP:LISTPURP, which that criteria links to, links back to the section on selection criteria which I originally cited here. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Which of the three does it fulfill? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Certainly not navigational, since that would apply only if the individual routes were notable. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        It's informational.
        There's really two discussions that are being had here simultaneously: should the content here exist on Wikipedia, and if so, should it be in its own separate article or in the main article for U.S. Route 76?
        The answer to the first question is that the content clearly should exist; there is reliable sourcing and content in articles does not need to be notable. If there were only one or two special routes, then it would of course make sense to include this in the main article. However, because there are so many, it makes more sense to split the special routes off to their own article. This isn't really a question of notability at all, but a question of organization. Our guidelines on lists allude to this principle, but don't explicitly state it, but it's part of why WP:CSC is written as it is. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Please be specific, what recognized informational purpose? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I already explained in my comment. You haven't engaged with most of what I have said. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Very sorry I appear to be missing it, what recognized informational purpose does this serve? I'm not aware of a recognized need to cover special routes in the United States. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • If what is being proposed were the norm, WP:OR would not matter. Half of the cites here are government reports (the organizations which are fulfilling their lawful obligations and maintain these routes, so while I do not question their reliability on factual matters, I question their relevance as far as notability significance), and the others are Google maps, which could be cherry picked to support all sorts of content. I do think this is a question of notability. Why is it necessary to describe, on an independent page, why the Columbia connector route passes some university frat houses, a library, and an auditorium, or that it crosses railroad tracks? These are all the observations of one editor who looked at Google maps. Trim out these subjective, unguided observations and what is left? Can I have an article on the home in which I live, since my city of residence is notable, and I can describe my apartment complex and cite Google street view, and then say that since it is not DUE to have a full description of my home on the city page, it can have its own article? -Indy beetle (talk) 03:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          If either was on the National Register of Historic Places, then yes. --Rschen7754 03:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          My complex is not on the register, and neither are these highways, far as I know. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          What I'm getting at is that the appropriate organization has said that of this category, this road has significance. --Rschen7754 03:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a body which represents 330 million people imparts notability onto the topics for which it was the creator or funder. This applies to numerous things, including Acts of government, government departments, states and provinces, as well other pieces of infrastructure including subways, bridges and ferries. - Floydian τ ¢ 13:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, no it does not... Thats not at all how notability works. The IP said something objectively crazy to make a hyperbolic point, you weren't supposed to say yes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion is noted, but years of precedent has established otherwise. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then you can of course provide diffs of the consensus that anything which the US Government was the creator or funder of is notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "precedent" is years of roadfans pursuing their interest without much scrutiny from the rest of the community. If this were really the standard, then wouldn't we have articles on all named USDA research stations? All US Forestry posts? All dams and levees built by the US Army Corps of Engineers or the WPA? -Indy beetle (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As opposed to two very vocal deletionists? And yes, those should have articles or be covered by a parent article, and split off into individual articles if there is too much to cover in the parent article, as is the case with this article. - Floydian τ ¢ 15:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since when have I been a "very vocal deletionist"? Diffs or retract, and you're probably going to have to retract because I'm consistently on the record as an inclusionist (if not an absolutist or extremist about it). Tell me, besides for this one how many pages have I taken to AfD? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a red herring. You've blanked plenty of sections in the past week or so, instead of doing a basic Google search and adding references. You then spent far more time than it would have to do that basic search, to devote yourself to challenging the use of Google Maps at WP:RSN, nag at editors for content added a decade ago on several talk pages, and complain about how the word "numerous" is a loaded/comparative term that can only be arrived at by original research and/or synthesis. So no, I will making no retractions. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even on this page, Horse Eye's Back and Indy beetle are the top two editors, both of whom !voted delete. Only Elli who !voted keep is even close in number of edits or bytes added. Again, just on this page, what Floydian says tracks. –Fredddie™ 02:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, how dare those "deletionists", trying to prevent WP:SYNTH! Those scoundrels who believe that Wikipedia articles should be based off of books and newspaper articles instead of Google Maps, so absurd! -Indy beetle (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Elli isn't "close" in terms of bytes added, they've actually added more than me in terms of bytes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I hesitate to relist an AFD this lengthy but I don't see a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 6 October 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Special_routes_of_U.S._Route_76&oldid=1115966443"