Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy DeLoach Parkway


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 02:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy DeLoach Parkway

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable road that does not have any independent sources about the road. Does not pass the SNG WP:USRD/NT and does not appear to pass the GNG. Removing the biography of the minor politician the road is named after we are left with almost no details as to why this named road is notable and should be included. A guide to a similar article would be President George Bush Turnpike. This was previously prodded for "Non-notable road named for non-notable mayor" and has recently been contested at WP:REFUND, but because there was copyright violations, the revision with the prod was not restored. Hasteur (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - quite a lot has been written about the road. Yes some of the stories are routine "traffic accident occurred", but many are not.  There are sources about its construction, public debate over its safety, and so on.  Unless I'm mistaken, these are the kinds of sources that are normally accepted to establish road notability - certainly there is more about this road than most short state highways which are considered "automatically" notable.  Being a short stub at current is hardly a reason for deletion, especially considering it was just restored yesterday.  The sources to expand it clearly exist.  I would think a few words about the guy it was named after are warranted in the content, but regardless that is not a matter for AfD to decide. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To reiterate my point, taking a quick look at President George Bush Turnpike, as suggested, seems to indicate this road is comparable in possible sourcing. Certainly creating sections on "accidents and incidents" and "expansions" would be easy to do; "history" is no doubt possible, although would take some effort and use of official documents (as is done in the Bush Turnpike article). What is lacking is content, not sources, and considering the article was just restored yesterday after being deleted many years ago, there is plenty of possibility of expansion occurring with a bit of patience. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * With respect A Contested Prod is always fair game immediately for AfD, the "quite a lot" that has been written is routine non-notable coverage which does not establish notability, ergo your reasoning for keeping is flawed at best (and willfully ignorant if less than best). Hasteur (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Any page is "fair game" for an AfD at any time; no one said otherwise... Your argument, as worded, is about content, so the fact the article had only existed for 1 day is a perfectly legitimate thing to point out.  If you are going to go around calling people "willfully ignorant" you might want to at least read all of their argument first as I specifically acknowledged some of the coverage is routine and then pointed out examples that aren't.  I then went on to compare this article's potential to that of an article you yourself offered as a good example of this genre and found the available sourcing could produce a similar article.  AfD judges potential (what I showed), not current state (what you argued).  Since you chose to ignored 2/3drs of my argument in an attempt to paint me in a negative light, maybe you should be applying that "willingfully ignorant" label to yourself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If AfD judges potential then we would never delete anything becasue everything shows potential. Every new word starts somewhere and FerngelDorp may be the way we describe how interstellar travel works in the future, so by your own reasoning it can't be deleted because it shows potential. Pleas re-read WP:CRYSTAL and realize that your arguments (and your equally ill tempered response to my pointing out your mis-application of established consensus and policy) are still wrong.  To Review: This is a sub-stub article about a local named "bypass highway" that is only 8.9 miles long named for an already adjudged non-notable local politician, Content of the "article" is so below standards that either this needs to be either deleted outright (as the reasoning for the original prod is still valid), userfied into a willing user's space (and not restored unless it can significantly overcome the challange presented by this AFD) or sent to Draft space to be improved as the standards for creation have significantly improved since this article was originally created. Hasteur (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: As long as reliable sources are found (check GDOT's website, too), the article should be kept. Also, it must be expanded and brought into a better format. Charlotte Allison (Allen/Morriswa) (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As such, I'm assuming that this is really a Delete as per AFD established consensus "Articles must demonstrate that they meet the inclusion requirements". As it currently stands I have reviewed what "evidence" there is and find no compelling reliable sources to keep this in mainspace. Hasteur (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Sourced and notable. AlbinoFerret  19:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 12:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 12:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Source examples:, , , (p. 9),  (short article). N ORTH A MERICA 1000 05:32, 28 March 2015 (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.