Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota State Highway 127

Minnesota State Highway 127

This unreferenced stub about fails to show that it is notable. It is a 2.4 mile (4km) road connecting Interstate 94 with a small street in a small town. Nothing but a few farms are located on it and apparently nothing of significance has happened on it. It is not a Route 66 by any stretch of the imagination. There does not appear to be potential for expanding the stub into an encyclopedic article. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not says: WP:NOT#DIR Wikipedia is not a directory. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Also per Wikipedia:Wikipedia articles are not :WP:NOT#IINFO Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Sometimes material is submitted that is perfectly factual and verifiable, but falls outside the scope of Wikipedia. Perhaps this could be placed in a Wiki devoted to every section of pavement in the world, but it does not appear to be notable or encyclopedic. I am not aware of any policy that all sections of pavement are inherently notable. Inkpaduta 16:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and expand. All active state routes are inherently notable. See here, here, and here for precedents. --HowardSF-U-T-C- 16:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. HowardSF is mistaken. The three examples he provides were kept because No Consensus - default to keep. Nothing has happened on this stretch of road. Expand it with one article on "traffic fatalities" or "nations biggest pothole" to show that something is happening there and I might change my mind. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clerks (talk • contribs) 17:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per WP not being an indiscriminate collection of information. The Rambling Man 17:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedents. The highway was improved and marked by the state for the use of motorists, making it notable. According to [1], it is part of Constitutional Route 3, taken over when old US 52 east of Osakis was given to the counties. --NE2 18:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, assuming that this can be verifiably referenced in the next few days. (jarbarf) 18:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just referenced most of it. The creation date can be referenced from old state maps, which I don't have. --NE2 19:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If a highway is important enough the state DOT bothered to assign it a number, it's notable enough for Wikipedia. —Scott5114 ↗ 19:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close per Scott5114 and NE2. V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 20:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per V60 et al, but see my comments on WT:USRD]. --MPD^{T / C} 22:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents says, regarding "Transportation and geography" the following:"Highways and interstates (major roads and motorways) are, at the moment, disputed." There is no policy that a short connecting road such as this has notability without meeting the requirement of multiple sources which are reliable and which have nontrivial coverage of it as a primary subject. Hiway fans keep claiming there is precedent that a numbered state hiway is inherently notable, but the precedent is lack of consensus and strong dispute that anything, least of all this 2.4 miles of pavement, is automatically notable. The only references anyone has found during this debate are a map and a printout of a bid list, both exceedingly trivial covreage. Lots of improvements costing $600,000 like the bid shown are also not notable, even if the government paid for them and they bear a number. Firetrucks and airplanes cost that much and also have numbers, but we do not have an article for every individual one. Inkpaduta 22:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Think of it as summary style: we could have a large article, list of Minnesota state highways, that certainly has "multiple non-trivial references". Splitting is then an organizational matter that cannot affect whether the information should be on Wikipedia. --NE2 23:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not what it said a few months ago. During November, there was no such dispute going on; I have contacted the editor who made the change to see what was going on. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, highways are notable. Apparently the precedents page was changed in November[2], but I can't find whatever discussion is being referenced. BryanG^(talk) 23:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Highways are notable; I would support a merge, however, if 127 is considered a minor spur of a larger road. 23skidoo 23:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above. We would need to find the proof of it being a spur of a larger route. If it is obvious enough yes - merge. • master_son^{Lets talk} 02:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Don't mischaracterize the precedents given, please. While the first one is, yes, no concensus, the other two were keeps, including Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minnesota_State_Highway_91, which is very similar to this case, which the result was keep. Moreover, more precedents can be found here and here. Note that the latter is route that no longer actively exists. If a state finds a route notable enough to number the route, then it should be considered notable. Using this test is much less arbitary and more consistent; it's either numbered by the state or isn't, as opposed to the myriad reasons given for deleting state route articles in the past. And numbering by the state doesn't change because different people contribute to a AfD. In addition, state highways are found in government reports, atlases, travel guides, etc. Hardly unencyclopedic by any means, and even if it's only borderline encyclopedic, m:Wikipedia is not paper—articles can be created that would not appear in a paper encyclopedia. There's thousands of little small towns that have articles here, yet would not appear in anything but government reports, atlases, gazeteers, etc. Should those be removed as well?--HowardSF-U-T-C- 04:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep highways are notable per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways . --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A project talk page cannot create policy that the project's subject is notable. And all I find there is Scott5114 stating that they are notable. That cannot by itself suspend the requirements of WP:N for notability. Lots of things have numbers put on them but are not notable.Inkpaduta 15:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You fail to see the point here, reasoning is given concerning the notability of highway articles. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florida State Road 300, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington State Route 900, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Hampshire Route 118]], and others at WP:USRD/P. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, roadcruft. Edeans 06:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete not that this will be the consensus, but i think it might begin to be time to start questioning this earlier decision on notability--it must strike any outsider as absurd.DGG 06:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. State highways are part of the main skeleton in a state's road infrastructure and valid enough topics in covering the transport system. Trying to establish a minimum length for notability will be an arbitrary condition, so we are better off just keeping all of the numbered highways. The number of short numbered highway sections are not all that overwhelming. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all numbered highways per Scott5114. Dismissing something as "roadcruft" is not providing any meaningful to the closing administrator for consideration. RFerreira 08:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nor is it helpful to the closing admin to make false claims of Wikipedia policies that 'all numbered pieces of pavement are inherently notable' so policies per WP:N do not require multiple independent reliable sources with substantial (non-directory, non-hiwayfansite, non-statwhiwaymap, non bid-list) coverage. Saying "Highways are all notable" is just another way of saying "ILIKEIT!" and can be discounted in tabulating comments. Inkpaduta 15:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. It instead implies that this route is part of the Minnesota State Trunk Highway system, and therefore is notable. Sure, U.S. Route 66 is very notable, but how about Pennsylvania Route 999? Should that be considered roadcruft and listed on AFD? I don't think so. V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 22:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. DGG and Inkpaduta are merely pointing out what should be a blatantly obvious absurdity. Edeans 23:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the same token, you should be able to throw out the vote above saying "roadcruft", or essentially "I don't like it."