Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A535 road


 * 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The result was keep, withdrawn by nominator. AD 16:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

A535 road

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A country road with no notability. Can't find anything significant about it on a web search. AD 12:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, i.e. Keep Entirely contrary to Notability (highways), i.e. "roads that are classified as motorways and A roads are notable and are suitable for inclusion". S a g a  C i t y (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Entirely contrary to some essay? Please explain how this road is notable, other than simply existing. Maybe you could expand the article beyond its present two sentences to show its notability? AD 14:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is not for me to do. It is for you as the proposer to make the case. Perhaps you would care to cite a successful deletion of a United Kingdom A road in support of your contention? S a g a C i t y (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If an article does not meet inclusion criteria (such as this one), it should be deleted or redirected. As you undid my redirection, I brought it here because it does not merit an article on its own. "Suitable for inclusion" does not mean an article necessarily. A list is as good, but you've undone that. I've explained my case - no sources, no importance, no notability. Now it's time to make yours. I'm not going to search for other A roads that might have been deleted. They are not this road, so cannot be compared. AD 15:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "oppose" is ambiguous. Please read Guide to deletion for how to express yourself unambiguously in an AFD discussion.  Uncle G (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - It does seem rather silly to have articles on stuff like this, but there's a slew of em at A roads in Zone 5 of the Great Britain numbering scheme that all have articles. If these are to be deleted then the list in its entirety should probably be addressed. Tarc (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Many of them are redirects. I think that many are worth articles (e.g. A555 road, which I created), but the list is fine for those roads such as this one that aren't particularly notable. AD 17:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to list and remove from template. The article contains scarcely more info than the list. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose This articles has only just been created in this form and as yet any full description for the article has yet to be written. If we are referring to the of A roads, what is the point of the list in its entirety, if not to direct users to an article. Little or no point in having a list that consists of main re-directs back the list page --TimMassey (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. The links can be removed, and they can just be plain text conveying information. As things stand the article contains no more information than its placement on the list. AD 21:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "oppose" is ambiguous. Please read Guide to deletion for how to express yourself unambiguously in an AFD discussion.  Uncle G (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep These roads are notable. I hate useless redirects into lsists. This should be expanded and written properly.♦  Dr. Blofeld  14:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I hate "it's notable"-type votes when clearly it's not at all. What you like or don't like is irrelevant. Tell us how this average, not particularly long country road is notable. Where is the significant coverage of this road in reliable sources? The two references aren't actually about the road. AD 15:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you genuinely think that one of wikipedia's most experienced editors votes to keep or delete articles based on a mere "liking" of an article. If you genuinely do then I'm bitterly disappointed with how you view me as an editor. Rubbish. I make a judgement about the notability of an article based on sources and function, this article is an A road so its amongst the UK's most notable roads and if you actually look inside a library and do some proper research you would be surprised, I'm certain of that. In Cheshire county library I'd vouch that there are many documents related to this road's construction and planning as a major public infrastructural work. Road length means nothing, we have full length articles on tiny lanes in London and little town squares.. I expanded an article earlier in which the nominator claimed the same thing "no sources, non notable" and the article now has 20 sources, at least half of them from reliable books, see Anne Rouse. Given time the same can be done with this article.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think anything; I'm only going by what you said: "I hate useless redirects into lsists". That looks very much like judging based on like and dislike, but I could be misreading. You've managed to add a few sources, none of which discuss the road itself - so far, we have nothing on its construction, its usage, the speed limits, etc etc. We have three references backing up that Jodrell Bank exists nearby, when only one is necessary - and still nothing at all discussing the road. Yes, it's mentioned in places, but no one has yet proven it needs its own article. All this information can easily be merged into the list. AD 15:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How long does it take to write a good, comprehensive and resourceful article? A lot longer than 20 minutes... I've done a lot of browsing over British villages and perusing over google maps and have often been really disappointed when I'm viewing a major A road of the Scottish Highlands and seen a redirect into a "List of A roads" which has very limited information on them. I've long thought its time that people invested some time and effort into developing these articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thing is, I'm not against road articles; far from it, I've even created some myself. It's just there isn't really much to say about this road, that isn't already provided in the list. The list could be reworked to have a "notable landmarks" column, which would take up much of the content from this article. I just think that if there is nothing of interest to say about the road itself, there is no point in having an article. Frankly, I was disappointed to see such a poor article as I've driven on this road a few times, and was even more disappointed when I realised there just isn't enough to write a useful article. If I was reading about a road, I'd want to know its construction dates, why it was made, the land around etc. This article has landmarks, but that's about it. It's disappointing, and always will be - a waste of time clicking off the list, if you ask me. AD 16:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more. It actually frustrates me more than anything else to see one line unreferenced/poorly sourced stubs on British A roads or redirects. It certainly is very disappointing to also see many British villages as one line stubs. We are used to seeing them for third world countries but with Britain its not good enough.We are very lucky in regards to documents and the recording of information in our history in that it should be straightforward to research these articles properly. But even for the UK the information actually on the web for many places is still in its infancy. I would bet top dollar that some local library in Cheshire, Macclesfield library or whatever does have detailed information on road development and dates and loads of info. Its sad that we can't access it. I did a LOT of local history research in my area to contribute to my studies and I was astounded how much info I found on local roads and settlements, anyting from gradients to bridge assessments. This information does exist somewhere, without a shadow of a doubt. I agree that the information is sketchy at the moment but we should be able to compile some sources for these A roads to at least make them worthwhile. I think in the long term it is much better for wikipedia to have proper articles on these roads. I agree that this road is hardly the M4 motorway but in my view it should be accepted.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * After the excellent work of Dr. Blofeld, could anybody not wish to Keep? TheGrappler (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words. I agree with Aiken that we really want to see more detail about the actual road construction and planning history but I'm afraid until somebody can do the research in a Cheshire library it won't happen. What I'd suggest is that these A roads are expanded like this so at least they have some initial use. If we want high quality articles which are truly comprehensive and top level then somebody somewhere at some point is going to have to do local /county research from documents and papers. User:Hassocks is a prime example of this and has made even small streets and buildings of Brighton GAs because he is exceptionally resourceful with books.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Road appears important and article is decently written.  Dough 48  72  20:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As I've driven on this road. Oh, and the small expansion work showing notability, etc, from Dr B too... ;-)  Lugnuts  (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.