Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exit 0


 * 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. Its not sources so its Original research, unnotable and not suitable for a merge Spartaz Humbug! 05:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Exit 0

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsourced list, redundant to other articles, original research-laden. Pure roadcruft. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, Roadcruft seems to be tolerated here; See Votes for deletion/Nevada State Route 401 as an example. I am going to recuse myself from !voting on this one, though, as I am a card-carrying roadgeek and therefore biased.  --Tckma (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:USRD/P has many more such discussions. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'd say merge but in my opinion this phenomenon is adequately covered by Exit number (many jurisdictions avoid them, here's how they avoid them, here's a handful of examples). While I imagine the list could be easily sourced via road atlases and such, I don't think this is notable enough to warrant that kind of coverage. BryanG (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - The information about "exit 0" seems somewhat trivial for an encyclopedia. If you want, I can keep this article in userspace. Dough4872 (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge - I like trivia. Some of the people in charge at Wikipedia have a problem with that. If you can find sources, I was not familiar with the concept before but find it interesting. Maybe there is another article where this sort of information can be included. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 19:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's Exit number. --Tckma (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete While it realy isnt Roadcruft, its unsourced and unneeded. Admrboltz (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge/redirect - Exits numbered as 0 are obviously verifiable, therefore not original research. As for "roadcruft", that's a matter of opinion rather than fact, but it is certainly not so trivial that it should not be included on Wikipedia at all.  It must, at minimum, remain under exit number.  -radiojon (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2009 (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.