Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handley-Ederville 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   speedy keep. Withdrawn by nom. Rschen7754 16:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Handley-Ederville Road

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Contested PROD. Non-notable arterial road.  Dough 48  72  19:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as not significantly mentioned in even TXDOT sources. If creator can provide some, I might reconsider. --Rschen7754 19:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per TC31, but recommend withdrawal of GAN also per TC31. --Rschen7754 21:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed on withdrawal of the GAN, for the record, since the article is missing everything I found. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 22:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I found a whole lot of thorough news coverage of the road, mostly involving various proposals to widen the road. This article calls it "the most talked-about issue among Richland Hills neighbors", plus there's this article, this article, this article calling it the "main corridor of economic development" in Richland Hills, this article from the 1980s (well before most of the others), and this article from when the project was first proposed in 1983. There's also this article on a different project involving the road, this article from when the project was finally completed, this article about state funding for the road, this article about construction delays, another article about the 1980s proposals... and there's even more stuff out there. This road easily passes the GNG, even if it wouldn't normally be a notable road. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 20:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Question: how long did it take you to find those sources? –Fredddie™ 00:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not long at all. All I had to do was check the "Archives" section of Google News, and most of those were on the first page of results. The nom seems to have forgotten WP:BEFORE. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 10:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I figured as much. I'm not at all surprised by this nomination; it seems like a knee-jerk reaction.  But I asked because I can't help but wonder why the main contributor didn't do the same and, you know, add them to the article. –Fredddie™ 12:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per TC31. –Fredddie™ 00:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clearly passes WP:GNG per sources found by TC31; passing the GNG = notability, and, thus, suitability for an article. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Withdraw - Since numerous third-party sources about this road have been found regarding this notability, this AFD should be closed as a keep.  Dough 48  72  15:56, 9 September 2012 (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.