Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dixie Travel Plaza


 * 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. Paper references are perfectly acceptable. I, like others here, am able to read the old Tribune story. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Dixie Travel Plaza

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article subject is a truck stop along Old Route 66. Claims notability, but the only articles that have hotlinks either mentions it once (the NYTimes article) or in passing as a truck stop that could get gambling (the Pantagraph article.) Neither is the subject of the actual article. GNews turns up nothing. Gsearch does turn up a few articles under previous names, but I don't think they meet WP:CORP guidelines for depth of coverage. Propose delete. Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Those mentions do not constitute significant coverage. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 03:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - The March 1973 Chicago Tribune article is specifically about this place. The 2003 AP Online article is also specifically about this place. (The fact there's an article by the AP about it closing down shows it must be important to someone!) The other Chicago Tribune article refers to it as "one of the most impressive" late night stops along I-55 (quoted from the Wiki article). And how about some of these inclusions in Route 66 history books:, , , , . Or how about this bit in Time Magazine? . It's even mentioned in fiction books! . Google Books gets 120 results for "Dixie Truckers Home" (the most well known name). The Google News Archive gets 222 hits for "Dixie Truckers Home". What else is there to say? Satisfies both WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Additionally, "hotlinks" are not required for references. Just because something is not online does not make it unverifiable or not reliable. Kindzmarauli (talk) 06:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment OK, let's run down those sources. (1) is a book about establishments on Route 66, and this truck stop gets part of a page. (2) is another book about Route 66; this time, the stop gets a paragraph. (3), another book, gives us more paragraphs but is more about the owner than the stop. (4) is like (1), this time with a paragraph and a photo. (5) is about the Route 66 hall of fame, not the stop, and only takes up a few short paragraphs in a list of Route 66 attractions.  I can't read (6) so we don't know if the story was about the stop or just mentioned it in passing.  (7) only mentions the stop in passing, twice.  I don't call any of those mentions significant coverage.  As for Gnews archives, those hits include obits from people who worked there, stories about the truck stop closing/being sold - again, not significant coverage.  If you want to clean up the article with those kinds of references, great.  Also, as far as the missing hotlinks - the problem is that the articles we CAN read, and the links you just gave us, don't qualify in any way as significant coverage.  Call me skeptical about the others. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (1) So what? It's a book about Route 66 establishments. This business is a Route 66 establishment. Everything in there is about 1/2 a page. Does that mean the book is useless? Again, I would call inclusion in multiple Route 66 travel and history books pretty "significant". All very subjective, isn't it? Also, skepticism doesn't mean the articles without "hotlinks" are not verifiable. Have you done any work whatsoever to try and check on them? The 1973 article has a small Proquest brief, not that it's a particularly enlightening one, but it's pretty clear from that and the title that it's about the business. That's the Chicago Tribune, a major newspaper. The AP Online article, AGAIN, is about the business. Just because it's an article about it closing does not mean the article is not about the business (and it ended up not closing but being sold and staying in business anyway). Here are a few more articles ABOUT the business, , , . They satisfy the Reliable Sources mandate and they are about the business. This article calls it the "oldest truck stop on Route 66". Personally, I don't see any employee obituaries in the Gnews Archive, I'm not sure what you're looking at. Kindzmarauli (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the 1986 Chicago Tribune article is also entirely about this business. The author of this article seems to have pulled it from a different database, but I was able to find the following excerpt (you will need to scroll down a bit) and have cleaned up that reference. So, we have two Tribune articles about the business and one AP Online article about the business, not to mention the Bloomington Pantagraph articles about the business above. Kindzmarauli (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't mean the Route 66 books are useless, but they are just somewhat comprehensive lists of businesses along Route 66. The book isn't about the establishment.  That's like saying a hotel is significant because it appears in multiple versions of the Yellow Pages.  For the non-hotlinked sources - how do we know if the article is actually about the business or not, and if so, whether it satisfies WP:CORP guidelines, unless we can read it?  Taking a look at the other articles you cited: (8) reads like it is about a truck strike and not the truck stop; (9) is about a new program at the stop, 350 words, I don't consider that depth; (10) is about the stop after some renovations (412 words); (11) is 196 words on a new program; (12) looks like an article about food at truck stops and not this particular truck stop, since it isn't mentioned in the header; (13) is a few paragraphs and hardly what I'd call qualifies as significant coverage; it's a blurb that I could dig up for almost any local and non-notable business.  I'm sorry, but you keep citing references, then when I point out that they only mention the stop in passing, part of a list, or doesn't seem significant, you just throw up more "sources" that I waste time looking at.  This is bordering on WP:LOTSOFSOURCES.  I reiterate my belief that we should delete this article, unless you can cite something which actually meets WP:CORP guidelines. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Books about Route 66 landmarks aren't the Yellow Pages, however, so this comparison isn't entirely convincing. Advertisements and phone book listings are examples of sources that cannot be used to establish WP:N, whereas books about historical landmarks, whether focusing on a single subject or many, can. Regarding


 * how do we know if the article is actually about the business or not, and if so, whether it satisfies WP:CORP guidelines, unless we can read it?


 * You can read it by going to your local library and taking advantage of their proquest viewer. It's not incumbent upon those who write aticles to provide sources that are only available online, for free and in their entirety, to establish Notability. You keep denying that these supplied references satisfy guidelines, yet you're simply incorrect. Number 13 is NOT the complete article, but an EXCERPT from it. This is how most newspapers operate: some articles are available for free online, some are not available online at all, and some are online with a short excerpt and then you have to pay a fee to read the rest (unless you go to the library). I was providing this EXCERPT as a helpful way of showing you that the article, from 1986 and not available for free online, is about the business. #8 is about a strike that took place at the truck stop. There is nothing wrong with #9 or #10, they're about the business and articles don't have to be a 3 page feature. Anyone can look at the excerpts and titles of the articles in question to see what they're about. The 1973 Tribune article is entitled "Truckers Home on U.S. 66"... what else would it be about? The excerpt in Google News Archive says something about their food. It's a restaurant, of course the article will discuss their food. The 1986 Tribune article, "A Palace for Kings of the Road" is about the business, again, it's common sense from looking at the excerpt and the title. Stating that they're questionable just becuase they're sourced to hardcopy is getting into an assumption of bad faith on the part of the article's author.


 * I have never before heard an argument that sources used to establish notability must be available for free online. I reiterate my stance that we should keep this article, based on the fact that the rationale for deletion is both (1) mistaken and (2) based on a faulty premise: (1) Even ignoring the books altogether, we have several reliable sources that cover this busines specifically AND in resonable depth, and (2) Sources need not be available for free online to be used to establish notability. This argument could be used to delete anything on Wikipedia that is sourced to "dead trees" hardcopy rather than online links. Kindzmarauli (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't tell if it is about the business, neither can we, unless we can read it. Please read WP:SOURCE which states The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article.  If you have a quote from these articles, please share it, otherwise all we know is that it has the words "Dixie Travel Plaza" (or variants thereof) in the article, without context.  This has nothing to do with bad faith, but whether the source meets Wikipedia guidelines.  IMHO, (8) seems like more than a strike at that truck stop, though it's not easy to tell.  Article titles aren't relevant, the guidelines on the depth of coverage don't mention anything about the title of an article, and we don't know if Dixie was the subject of the article or mentioned in passing.  I don't, at least.
 * Quite seriously, if anyone here has access to the articles listed in their entirely and can summarize their contents and (even better) provide quotes, I think that will help us reach consensus. In absence of that, feel free to check out the links, but I don't think we've met the burden of proof w/r/t WP:SOURCE.  Finally, it doesn't appear that this stop is not the home of the Route 66 Hall of Fame as originally cited.  That further reduces notability. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, you misinterpret the policy. That section you quoted from the source guideline has nothing WHATSOEVER to do with sources being available online or not. Basically, your argument is that anything that is not available online is not a reliable source... which is preposterous. You can keep saying articles in the Chicago Tribune about the business are not legitimate because they're not available for free online all you like but that's not how the policy works. Read WP:SOURCEACCESS, specifically The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. The normal thing to do is assume the author, an editor in good standing who has written several nice articles that I can see, is not trying to sneak in bogus references. Perhaps when the author eventually notices this discussion and chimes in we will know more. Edit: The Route 66 museum is still there, or at least it was when I stopped in for lunch last year. Kindzmarauli (talk) 03:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I purchased the two Tribune articles, the one from 1973 and the one from 1986. Here's a pull quote, as requested, from the 1986 article


 * The Dixie has been accommodating long-distance haulers since 1928, when they were kicking their pedals on Route 66. U.S. 66 became I-55, and the Dixie grew to a sprawling, flat-roofed structure that is one of the largest truck stops in the country.


 * The 1973 article is a feature, a full top third of a broadsheet, plus a top-bottom column. I have it saved as a pdf, I am not sure how to make it available to others though. Kindzmarauli (talk) 03:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. What do the articles say?  I'm actually more interested in content/depth of coverage than a quote.  I'm not doing this to stonewall you, if this stop is notable then it should get an article. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The 1986 article talks about truck drivers stopping there to eat or sleep in the special "truckers only" cubicles they have in back. Then it talks about their in house barber who had worked there for 18 years (in 1986). It pretty much just describes the place. The 1973 article starts out talking about food, then describes the place as a combination service station, restaurant, hotel, shopping center, western union depot... it describes it as "maybe the most interesting resting spot between Chicago and St. Louis... it's a really long article. I'll just figure out how to upload it somewhere and link it here. Kindzmarauli (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Here it is. www.4shared.com/document/YzLQraO_/truckers1.html . Copy and paste into your browser. That webhost is blacklisted for some reason so I can't hotlink. I think it will let you download for free, if not let me know and I'll try to figure something else out. Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The 1973 article (the one with the PDF) does go into pretty good detail about the stop.  I appreciate the work you did to publish this.  I'm curious to hear what others have to say after reading the sources you've posted and that article.  --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  —Kindzmarauli (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  —Kindzmarauli (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems Kindzmarauli has done most of my work for me! :-) This truck stop satisfies WP:N per the above and I do believe one large feature, plus a number of smaller ones are enough to constitute "significant" coverage. My understanding of "significant" coverage is that you can't use things like obituaries, phone book listings, advertisements, tiny blurbs and the like. Most of the shorter articles are not 1/2 page features but certainly not small enough to be a blurb (most of the Pantagraph articles are between 400 and 700 words). I have references in the article and will incorporate the others up above too as time permits. I have a copy of the earlier 1973 feature article already, it's a shame Kindz went and bought it unnecessarily but thank you. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -Notable; reliable sources provided and available. --doncram (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sourced, well written, and notable. -- ErgoSum • talk • trib  02:19, 23 June 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.