Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I-73/74 North–South Corridor


 * 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   Merge into I-73 and I-74. v/r - TP 15:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I-73/74 North–South Corridor

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unsourced and redundant to existing articles on 73/74. This says nothing the I-73 and I-74 articles do not. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that, given current plans, Interstate 73 and Interstate 74 will never exist in Ohio (east of Cincinnati) and West Virginia. So it's incorrect to cover this portion (which would include a long overlap of the two) in the I-73 and I-74 articles, since it's not I-73 or I-74, but a non-Interstate object called "I-73/74 North–South Corridor". --NE2 05:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, it's not unsourced. --NE2 05:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge or delete. WP:NOTNEWS, can be covered elsewhere. --Rschen7754 05:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:WTF? --NE2 05:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is including the material in a Future section out of the question? --Rschen7754 05:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still wondering what you mean by "WP:NEWS".
 * I assume you mean future sections of the I-73 and I-74 articles? That would mean that they are planned to be portions of I-73 and I-74, which is currently untrue north of I-81. --NE2 05:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A lot of it reads like a press release one finds on DOT sites. And "Future" sections are allowed to have failed alternatives to the current proposed routing. --Rschen7754 06:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "A lot of it reads like a press release one finds on DOT sites." Huh? I'm not seeing this, but even if it were true, is it bad when a DOT writes a description of a route without saying "thank you Governor Foo for making this possible"? "Future" means what is planned to happen. If you're putting failed proposals in "future", you're lying to the reader. --NE2 06:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not if you explicitly labeled them as failed. For example, "The DOT proposed X, but it didn't work out because Y and Z." --Rschen7754 06:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not part of the future of the route; it would belong in history. But the I-73/74 North–South Corridor is not simply a historical proposal, but an actual corridor being built to sub-Interstate standards (north of I-81). The second photo on http://www.roadfan.com/i73wva.html shows a sign that is posted in West Virginia. --NE2 06:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 05:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Can't even tell what it is because it doesn't say! Just defines it by undefined insider jargon ("high priority corridor") which is linked to an article not so-named which also doesn't defin it.   And the people who know what that jargon means don't need to read this  article. North8000 (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge content into the appropriate articles and then delete as an unlikely search term for either I-73 or I-74. –Fredddie™ 22:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge as appropriate and then delete per Freddie. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 13:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge as per Fredddie. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and keep as dab page between I-73 and I-74.  Dough 48  72  03:47, 13 September 2011 (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.