Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 39 (1920s)

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: As nobody is now recommending deletion, what to do with the article is now an editorial decision. I will move it to Pennsylvania Route 19 (1920s), and remove all references to PA 39 and the disambiguation link from PA 39 pending verification (or lack thereof). What happens after that is not a matter for AFD. --NE2 21:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania Route 39 (1920s)

This article lacks any verifiable sources; after searching maps from the time period of its suggested existence, there was nothing found. Son 04:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Son, I don't see this route in any of these maps. And the article is too short to contain any information about this route. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 05:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It existed for a year or two, between the numbering of the U.S. Routes in 1926 or 1927 and the renumbering in 1928. A map from exactly the right time is needed for verification, but in the meantime there is definite circumstancial evidence: the presence of the spurs 139 to 639. I'll continue to look for verification. --NE2 05:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed the owner of [1] to see if he can confirm. --NE2 05:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Pennsylvania Route 39, even if it did exist, doesn't appear there is enough info at present to warrant a separate article, should be merged into the history of Pennsylvania Route 39. --Holderca1 10:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It most definitely should not, since the two routes have nothing to do with each other. That would be like merging London, England with London, Ontario. --NE2 11:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So you are saying that the two routes coexisted? Also that is a terrible analogy, if I had said merge Pennsylvania Route 39 with Illinois Route 39, than you would have a point with that. --Holderca1 11:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apparently this road is by now known by another number (or by none at all). The current road's former number is probably not notable itself, so my suggestion would be to merge it to whatever Pennsylvania Route it currently is. If the road isn't notable today, I don't see that it having a number for two years in the 1920s makes it notable. --Huon 15:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify my comment, the content should be merged to PA 39 as well as the road it is currently (if any at all), and the link should be redirected to whatever it is now. The content should appear on the PA 39 article for two reasons, first, the article title is Pennsylvania Route 39, which is a highway designation, any route that has had designation should appear on that article as a history of the designation if nothing else. Also, for the end user, who would ever type in "Pennsylvania Route 39 (1920s)"? No one would, they are much likely to type in "Pennsylvania Route 39", the relevant history should be on that article, if there is suffient info to create a separate article, than by all means, just add {{main}} to its mention in the PA 39 article. --Holderca1 15:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- However, there is little verifiable information on this other PA 39. If we can't find any reliable sources, then it should be deleted, as it would be taken out of the PA 39 article for not having any citations. --Son 16:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Holdercat if proof it really existed can be found by the end of the AFD period, else delete. Information about defunct routes can be useful, as in research about a person or business which 1920's documents state was located on the route. Edison 16:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about this: move to Pennsylvania Route 19 (1920s), which is shown on many maps.[2][3][4][5] (Interesting historical note: [6] shows it as part of Pennsylvania Route 5 (1920s) - maybe it could be a section of that article.) Then whether to include the short-lived PA 39 renumbering is a question of the content of the article rather than the existence of the article. --NE2 17:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a question, according to [7], the PA 19 to which you are referring to in the maps existed from 1926 until 1930. I don't know how reliable that is, but it would be hard for PA 39 to have been previously PA 19 during the 1920s if PA 19 existed until 1930. Also, what source did you use to create this article in the first place? --Holderca1 17:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have found that pahighways is often imprecise with dates; the routes that overlapped U.S. Routes appear to be gone from most maps by 1929. It appears that at least some of them were removed in early 1928: [8] The main source I used was [9], which is of course not a reliable source (so I didn't cite it). --NE2 18:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will only support a merge with another article if sources can prove it existed. If a source can prove that PA 39 (1920s) existed, then cite it, and merge with PA 39 under the history section. Already mentioned in the history of the road is that the Route 39 number was used as a Legislative Route in southwest Central Pennsylvania. This article for deletion says it was at one time PA 19 (1920s). Could it be merged into that? I believe it can, as long as sources can be found that proves this is the case. --Son 19:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - PA 19 (1920s) currently redirects; it would be moved there, and if no sources for PA 39 can be found then that part would be removed. --NE2 19:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into either Pennsylvania Route 19 (1920s) or Pennsylvania Route 5 (1920s). -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 20:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further review, I agree with JA10. Merge. As the nominator of this article for deletion, this should mean that this AfD is dead. --Son 20:23, 25 July 2007 (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.