Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Connector


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus to delete. Petros471 19:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Central Connector
Road never existed. Author resists merge to Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority by reverting multiple merge attempts. Entirety of article is summarized there in one sentence; so it seems a delete (or a protected redirect) is in order B.Wind 07:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A whole chapter in a book about the road (PDF). Recommend speedy keep for a bad-faith nomination. --SPUI (T - C) 07:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Funny enough, the only thing from that book in either article is the link. The previous comment does not address the issues of the road never existing and the totality of the article in question is already in Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority. B.Wind 07:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And so you want to salt the earth by making a protected redirect, just because the present article is a stub? Bloody hell. --SPUI (T - C) 07:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge as proposed. There is never going to be much information about a road that never existed.  We might learn more about the Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority, or decision making processes in Orlando, or whatever, but that belongs eleswhere, and the non-road is NN.  Mr Stephen 09:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * ... and redirect. sorry, forgot. Mr Stephen 09:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm going to go against the crowd here and say keep, while it's true that the road never actually existed, that fact in my book makes it inherintly more notable than the thousands of articles we already have on existing roads, if this was expanded to explain exactly why said road was met with so much opposition it could be a really great article. Deathawk 20:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Deathawk...Scott5114 00:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep expandable and noteworthy. Fg2 13:55, 13 June 2006 (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.