Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road T (Saguache County, Colorado)


 * 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 delete. ✗ plicit  11:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

County Road T (Saguache County, Colorado)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Quite simply, this fails WP:GNG. County roads are rarely notable, and we don't keep them unless they meet GNG, which this won't.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  Imzadi 1979   →   05:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions.  Imzadi 1979   →   05:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The importance of this road depends on the notability of its eastern terminus, Crestone, Colorado. Although it fails the standard test, more is lost by deleting it than by keeping it; the utility of the encyclopedia as an information resource is diminished. User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Clearly does not meet GNG or NGEO. If its notability rests on its connection to the city, then this information can simply be covered in the city article.  Sounder Bruce  07:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing GNG and NGEO. Fred Bauder's argument does not carry any weight because of WP:INHERIT. It is also wholly unsourced, the only reference is to the directions to some music festival. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * That isn't actually true any more. Damnit!  I found sources for a road that is a whole stretch of nothing. Uncle G (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * An entire paragraph, and most of the content just added, is not about the road. Rather it is about a subdivision that just happens to be along it. That's the same as Fred Bauder's argument as stated by Trainsandotherthings. Sorry, still fails GNG because you don't have the significant coverage part of "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject".  Imzadi 1979  →   17:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that your paragraph counter is broken. Uncle G (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The article currently has five paragraphs. The first is a single sentence; so is the second.The fourth has two sentences, and the fifth has one. The third is most of the word count, and it's about a subdivision and not about the road, so it doesn't/shouldn't count for GNG purposes. Iff I were to edit this article, I'd merge the first and second together with the fourth and delete the entire third paragraph as a tangent.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete GNG fail, despite the attempt to disguise this by adding irrelevant content not about the road itself. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:24, 12 April 2022 (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.