Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highways in England and Wales


 * 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. Aoidh (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Highways in England and Wales

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

This comes off as an essay/original research that would be more appropriate for Wikiversity. There are other articles on highways in England and Wales, see Roads in the United Kingdom. Rschen7754 06:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Rschen7754 06:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A highway isn't necessarily a road; and a road isn't necessarily a highway. A road is a man made feature for transporting vehicles, but a highway is a legal concept.—S Marshall T/C 07:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * (Later) A highway is anything that has a public right of way over it, so "highway" includes some footpaths, some bridle paths and some canals. Section 328 of the Highways Act 1980, which defines the scope of that Act, says that the Act covers highways that aren't ferries or waterways.  This suggests that parliament thinks ferries can be highways.—S Marshall T/C 08:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Unsure - the page does appear to be getting into a legal definition and WP:NOTDICTIONARY. On the other hand there seem to me to be a number of good sources to show that there is notability in the exact legal definition of a highway on E&W law. JMWt (talk) 09:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Roads in the United Kingdom Rights of way in England and Wales, which is substantially more developed. I came here thinking this might be worth retaining, but the article as it stands is little more than a dictionary definition. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Amended redirect target. I remain entirely unconvinced this should remain a standalone page. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If we were going to redirect, then the target should be Rights of way in England and Wales, which is an article about law rather than transport infrastructure, and covers a closely-related (but distinguishable) subject.—S Marshall T/C 15:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Rights of way in England and Wales, which seems like a more appropriate target. Stopasianhate (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 01:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England and Wales.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, and expand. What we're dealing with here is a fundamental misconception about what a highway is in England and Wales, and it reduces to WP:ENGVAR.  In American, a "highway" is a big road.  It means what we over here call a "motorway".  So to an American it would falsely seem to make sense to merge highways into roads.  But that's not what it means here, and I'd ask any other Americans who're considering !voting in this discussion please to read highway before they do so.—S Marshall T/C 09:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not always. More correctly, a highway "in American" is simply a main road.  I've lived in Iowa my whole life and I've lived in rural parts where the only "highway" nearby was a county road (think B road) and I've lived in the city where the "highway" was an Interstate Highway.  Context is important.
 * That all being said, I think the information contained herein is useful and I'd hate to see it deleted, but there seems to be considerable overlap with Rights of way in England and Wales. I'm Leaning Merge but I am indifferent to which article is the merge target. –Fredddie™ 00:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I find it notable but I'm not sure what it offers that is not already provided by Rights of way in England and Wales in greater detail. I am currently inclined toward Redirect to Rights of way in England and Wales but if this discussion suggests material that could be added to the Highways article that would not be appropriate for the Rights of way page then I will reconsider my !vote. Agree that this should not redirect to a roads article. --Mgp28 (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The discussions below have convinced me that we should keep this separate from Rights of Way. I don't fully understand the difference between the two (and that is the key thing I would like to see added to the article) but I am convinced that there is one. --Mgp28 (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am not a lawyer, but from my basic understanding of the law in E&W, Highways are not the same as RoW. I'm not even sure that Highways are directly a subset of RoW. I'm not even sure that Motorways are considered under the Rights of Way legislation (being as they are owned by the state rather than the landowner over which they cross, there is no Right to access them with a range of vehicles, etc). Whilst this might be pedantic, I therefore think Rights of way in England and Wales is the wrong target given the pages largely focus on the law. JMWt (talk) 08:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * To make it more complicated, Highways departments maintain Rights of Way, but Highways themselves are not Rights of Way. Or something. JMWt (talk) 08:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, highways are subsets of rights of way. A right of way might allow a limited set of people to cross land.  A highway is land that anyone can pass over.  Rights of way are themselves subsets of easements.—S Marshall T/C 08:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you, prove it with relevant references. JMWt (talk) 10:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * With pleasure. All the best—S Marshall T/C 12:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a very odd reference to point to as it arguably shows the opposite; an argument about Right of Way also being a Highway. Anyway, random links aside, the point is that in 2023 under English law, Rights of Way in E&W are regulated under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and Highways are regulated under the Highways Act 1980. So it makes zero sense to suggest that someone looking for information about Highways in E&W would find it at a page about RoW in E&W. Because they are different things with different laws. JMWt (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a very odd reference to point to as it arguably shows the opposite; an argument about Right of Way also being a Highway. Anyway, random links aside, the point is that in 2023 under English law, Rights of Way in E&W are regulated under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and Highways are regulated under the Highways Act 1980. So it makes zero sense to suggest that someone looking for information about Highways in E&W would find it at a page about RoW in E&W. Because they are different things with different laws. JMWt (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay. The relevant part of that link is the paragraph that says A highway (that is to say, a way over which there exists a public right of passage for all Her Majesty’s subjects at all seasons of the year freely to pass and repass without let or hindrance)...; that's what a highway is.  Not all Rights of Way are regulated under the CROW 2000, although I think that all public rights of way are.  The CROW 2000 does affect highways where it modifies the Highways Act 1980 (at sections 57-59).  But I think from what you say that your position is that highways and rights of way are distinct, if related, concepts?  If so then our positions are very similar.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 00:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * sorry, but being a pedant, your para in green proves my point. A highway is a way.. with a public right of passage. Which is a relevant distinction historically when many ways in E&W were not public. That's not the same as a Right of Way. It may sound similar but the words are literally different and refer to different things. JMWt (talk) 06:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Satisfies GNG easily and by a exceptionally wide margin. There are many books, and many periodical articles, that are entirely about highways in England and Wales. There is far too much coverage of highways in England and Wales, and far too much coverage of other rights of way in England and Wales, to merge both topics into a single article. Highways and rights of way are not the same thing. (An easement can be a right of way, but that certainly does not necessarily make it a highway. Some easements are private rights of way:  . Highways are always public rights of way: .). An article on highways is capable of being expanded beyond a definition, because there is a large body of law and literature relating to the consequences of being a highway (eg there is an offence of obstructing highways; a person can have a duty to maintain a highway; etc etc etc). This article does not violate WP:NOT. James500 (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that the topic of highways in England and Wales is a notable one; what I question is whether the question of a legal definition of a highway in those countries is notable enough for its own article, and covered appropriately here (as opposed to some of the law articles linked to) in a way that doesn't violate WP:SYNTH. --Rschen7754 03:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTDICTIONARY says "articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content" (emphasis added). This article does not consist entirely of a definition. Even if it did, it could easily be expanded beyond a definition without violating WP:SYNTH or any other policy or guideline. Either way, this article should be expanded. James500 (talk) 03:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Your reference to Highways are always public rights of way is a Scottish Government document about the situation in Scotland.
 * I don't know about Scotland, but in E&W highways are not always Rights of Way in the sense that the law defines it in E&W. JMWt (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Could I refocus you, JMWt? What's at issue here is whether this title should be an article, a redirect or a redlink, and you've yet to express a clear view.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 11:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it is going to be quite hard, and quite dull, to write a meaningful page about this topic to be honest. I'm sure there are lots of books about the highways of E&W just like there are likely books about the towns and villages of England. I think that's way too vague a concept to have a WP page.
 * If we are sticking to literal definitions of legal terms, the overlap with Highways Act 1980 would necessarily be large. If we are just going to waffle on vaguely about roads the overlap is going to be almost entirely with Roads in the United Kingdom.
 * I don't think there is any real need for this page. I'm not sure it hurts en.wiki for it to exist so I'm not (strongly) !voting delete.
 * Redirects are a problem as there is no obvious target. Tbh I highly doubt many would be directly typing Highways in England and Wales so the only question is how the wikilink is being used on existing pages. Others have strongly objected other possibilities and my only strong !vote here is against the motion that the best target is Rights of way in England and Wales for the pedantic reasons I've outlined above. JMWt (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes: it's definitely going to be a slog to write. That's likely why there have been so few edits since I started the article a dozen years ago.  That doesn't mean it shouldn't be written, but in the meantime one option is to add pointers to the various Highways Acts that are currently in force, so the article becomes a stub with a disambiguation function.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 12:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * (1) Paragraph 1.73 of the joint report by the Law Commission (of England and Wales) and the Scottish Law Commission specifically says "In England and Wales". Therefore it is describing the situation in England and Wales, not the situation in Scotland. Highways are always public rights of way in England and Wales. (2) The overlap with the Highways Act 1980 is minimal. There are many other statutes relating to highways. There is a large body of case law relating to highways. [In particular, the concept of a highway already existed under pre-statutory common law and and still exists at common law. If you read volume 55 (Highways, streets and bridges) of the Fifth Edition of Halsbury's Laws of England, you will see that the very first topic it discusses is the (non-statutory) common law of highways, which still exists for purposes not covered by the legislation. Like much legislation, the Highways Act 1980 merely supplements the existing common law and does not abolish or replace it altogether for every purpose.] The article on the Highways Act 1980 cannot cover the pre-1980 history of highways law. Writing about a particular branch of the law is fundamentally different from writing about a particular statute. That is why you will find separate publications about highways law and separate publications about the Highways Act. There are separate publications because those publications fufill different purposes and provide different information in a different format etc. James500 (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ok then I'm wrong. Good luck to anyone trying to write a WP page about all of that. JMWt (talk) 07:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. Given the discussion in AFD, a well written article would be clarifying. Srnec (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep This has the potential for a good article but it needs to be expanded and more refernces need to be provided. Rillington (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.