Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Virginia Route 817

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 Snowball keep NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Virginia Route 817

Fails WP:NTSR: "Roads are notable if they have been analyzed and discussed in multiple independent sources, discussing things such as their impact on a region." Fails WP:USRD/NT: "the article should still make some claim of the highway's individual notability, such as historical significance, press coverage, etc. Highways that have very little to say about them (i.e. those that are extremely short and have no historical significance) may be better suited to a list". -- Jeandré, 2008-11-12t18:57z 18:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with everything in the nomination and it's very well stated and explained. However, my conclusion was that the article needs to be fixed to address these concerns, not deleted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to U.S. Route 35 in West Virginia or West Virginia Route 17 (1920s). General consensus is that state highways are notable enough for either an article or a redirect if there's very little to say. --NE2 19:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I initially wrote the article stub after WV 817's formation last month. Meets WP:USRD/NT: The route is a primary state highway and there is already some discussion in the article about its historical significance. The Charleston newspapers thought enough of the routes formation to write an extensive article (linked from the page) about its formation. The article can be expanded with more history, but if we're saying this article needs deleted then nearly every other state route article needs deleted. Brian Powell (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What historical significance? WP:OSE: The existence of other non notable and unencyclopedic info does not mean this should also stay. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-12t21:08z
  - The article discusses the routes historical significance as a major corridor connecting West Virginia and Ohio. It also discusses the road's relationship to the Silver Bridge disaster. My argument about other similar articles is very valid - it shows that the WV 817 is consistent with the criteria commonly used by WP:USRD. Consistency is an acceptable argument as per WP:OSE. Brian Powell (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Uh, you're referencing a "proposed" guideline and then misusing USRD's guideline, which I was a participant in developing. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does USRD say articles that do not indicate encyclopedic notability should stay? -- Jeandré, 2008-11-12t21:08z
  - I never said that, don't put words in my mouth. State highways are clearly notable - and has been proven several times: WP:USRD/P has a list of several such debates. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - the above reasons given for deletion are not relevant at all. 89.243.56.221 (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly meets WP:N, as the Charleston Daily Mail did a story about it (which is used as a reference), and as a primary state highway, would be considered notable enough for an article anyway per WP:USRD/NT. (This highway was until recently a segment of U.S. 35, which is enough historic significance for USRD.) Minor highways lists have become somewhat deprecated in USRD; we should see about revising that guideline to reflect this practice. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly fails wp:n which states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" (emphasis mine). Fails WP:USRD/NT which states "the article should still make some claim of the highway's individual notability". -- Jeandré, 2008-11-12t21:08z
Keep What are we if we aren't a place to assemble knowledge? This seems to be exactly what we are here for. This isn't a county road. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 20:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" - it's an attempt to build an encyclopedia. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-12t21:08z
  - That's what we are attempting to do. Deleting the article doesn't help the process. Brian Powell (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jeandré is correct that we're not indiscriminate: but we've decided that state highways are worthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2008 (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.