User talk:Kevon kevono/Archive 5



The Signpost: 04 July 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Monterey Road (California)


The article Monterey Road (California) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * article fails to demonstrate notability inline with WP:GNG; simply being a former segment of a state highway does not confer any notability in and of itself

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't done with the article, but ok. Kevon kevono (talk) 04:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC) 21:35 (PDT)
 * It would be a smart move to create a draft of a potential article first and not create a very incomplete article in the mainspace. This has the advantage that you can take some time to add the information and sources that back notability for the subject. If you're going to create the article in mainspace right away, be prepared to have the article make a case for notability from the outset. Otherwise, editors can challenge you. Articles on roads which aren't state highways are frequently challenged and deleted. At one time, even state highway articles were routinely nominated for deletion on notability grounds.
 * Remember the golden rule about notability: "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". This means we should ideally have newspaper articles, books or book chapters, or magazine articles about the road. Those would all be reliable sources and independent of the subject (or the agency/ies that own and maintain the road). As for significant coverage, the sources need to be about the subject road and not just mentioning it. Take a look at Brockway Mountain Drive, and you'll find a whole book about the history of that road plus webpages, TV news stories and newspaper and magazine articles. Each of these are about the road, or prominently feature it; they are not passing mentions. Yes, there are other sources in use there that have more minor mentions, or they source other things tangential to the road, but there is a core of sources that demonstrate that significant coverage we need.
 * A roadway that used to be part of another state highway is not notable for that reason. Notability is not inherited. In this situation, a case can be made that the road was notable before it was part of US 101, but I'm skeptical. Of the sources the other editor added, two are self-published. The one definitely doesn't qualify under our reliable source rules, and the other probably doesn't qualify either. (It appears to be a local history website written by local residents who are not professional historians nor acknowledged by others to be historians, nor is it backed by the imprimatur of a local historical society.) The footnotes with the quotations appended qualify only as passing mentions, leaving just the one newspaper source to handle notability, and that's not significant coverage.  Imzadi 1979  →   06:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 July 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Collapsing comments
Regarding this, you should only collapse your comments after you've supported or opposed, otherwise they get lost. Oh, and don't forget to use. –Fredddie™ 00:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks Kevon kevono (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC) 17:10 (PDT)

One other thing. Could you please change the div tag in your signature to a span? It won't change the look of your signature, but will keep everything in the same line. –Fredddie™ 04:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh? Kevon kevono (talk) 04:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC) 21:52 (PDT)
 * Notice here that your signature is located within  tags.  That causes your signature to start on a new line. –Fredddie™ 04:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Kevon kevono (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC) 14:13 (PDT)