Talk:Interstate 84 (Connecticut–Rhode Island)

This article's removal
I'm not going to edit war over this...but isn't Wikipedia about building on each other's work, yes I admit I did have a couple of poor sources, but there are also some great sources in the article, and it's pretty notable. What would of been best, at least to me, is to remove the poor sources, and try to find better sources to fill up the spot, or remove the sentence. NY Times is a great source, along with some of the other sites I sourced in, like a couple of CTDOT log books. Maybe if me (or you) were to dig a bit deeper, we could find some good sources. I'll wait for a reply before doing anything...&mdash; JJ Be rs  &#124;  ta lk 04:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

P.S: I hope this doesn't sound like a desperate plea of help.
 * We already have an article on this topic, and we don't need a second. As I noted, you should expand the existing article with non-SPSs first.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As you look like, at least from your user page, you are from Michigan, I believe you are getting confused on the article with the current highway, this is about the former planned highway through the state, that small sections were built for. The article very briefly goes into this, but doesn't, and shouldn't go into full depth for this. And again, unless there's going to be a mass deletion of the sources from Kurumi.com and both nycroads.com and bostonroads.com, this is no candidate for full removal. Again, there is a source that I used to verify something that could be removed, but not enough sources are very un-reliable to be removed, many of them are being tagged correctly, but they have citations inside the article from well known sources.


 * Now about the title. I admit the title could be misleading, but then just move it to a better title, my recommendation is now Old Interstate 84 (Connecticut—Rhode Island). A bit better for a title, informing people about the subject matter.&mdash; JJ Be rs &#124;  ta lk  17:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Since part of the highway was built and remains as Interstate 384, that would be the other appropriate merger/redirect target, but my position remains: we already have an article on this subject and don't need a second one.  Imzadi 1979  →   21:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That is the same situation as the target article, it's brief, and shouldn't be expanded due to the nature of the article. That's the reason of the article's existence.&mdash; JJ Be rs  &#124;  ta lk 00:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the Kurumi website, he did a good job of citing his sources, which is somewhat rare in roadgeek websites. There is nothing that says you can't look at those same sources to write a Good Article here. –Fredddie™ 01:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This looks like that this is going to be a war on weather or not just simply the idea that it possibly is a self-published source makes it reliable...I just read the reply, and I'm about to reply on the WikiProject page, but the I-384 article briefly goes into this topic, and that is good...if it didn't, it would look odd, and really this article is about the planning/building of the highway, that article is about just one of the remnants of the planned highway. If the article is restated to it's full form, I'll somewhat summarize this into that article and add a main article tag to that article.&mdash; JJ Be rs  &#124;  ta lk 01:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Per policy, we cannot use self-published sources unless they meet narrow exceptions. Those exceptions have not been applied to any of the various roadgeek websites, so you should not be using them. Mine them for information, and in the case of kurumi, mine them for their cited sources, but never cite them directly. That other articles get this wrong just means we need to sweep through them at some point and fix them.
 * The planning and truncated building of I-84 is also the planning and completed building of I-384. They're inextricably linked, so the background to I-384 is the history of the original I-84. In that case, I'd suggest you start over from scratch using only reliable sources, and avoiding all self-published sources. The I-384 article needs this additional background, so it's my opinion that's where you should be adding this content at first.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * One side note, but the original Interstate 196's history is covered in the history section of the modern highway, as well as being covered as appropriate in the history sections of U.S. Route 16 in Michigan and Interstate 96. As all three are Featured Articles, well, it would seem that we don't require separate articles as you want us to believe.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess it's time to go mining...I got a few sources last night from them, but I'll do a heavy amount today. I'm not going to remove the SPS's right now, but I'll make it a lot less reliant on them.&mdash; JJ Be rs &#124;  ta lk  16:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I just removed quite a bit of the tagged sources, I'm thinking that it is ready to be re-added into the main space.&mdash; JJ Be rs &#124;  ta lk  17:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)