Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kentucky Route 595


 * 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. Withdrawn by nominator with no votes to delete. --Polaron | Talk 14:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Kentucky Route 595

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable Ketucky state secondary road that fails WP:USRD/NT. Millbrooky (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The road is actually not a secondary state highway and is a primary state highway, which is notable per the standards.  Dough 48  72  15:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The reference and this map suggest otherwise. They both list KY 595 as a "state secondary route," not as part of the "state primary system." The great majority (95%) of the highway is actually listed as "rural secondary." --Millbrooky (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * From looking at the map, it appears that KY 595 is several miles long and serves as the main road through western Madison County. In addition, there are several other articles on secondary routes in KY.  Dough 48  72  16:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. In Kentucky, the primary and secondary state highway classes are nothing more than internal classifications; they're both signed the same way and are both part of the same statewide numbering system. While this route may be only part of the secondary system, it should be noted that there are several routes that have segments in both systems. –  T M F 16:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep—Internal designations aside, it's still a state highway. Numerous precedents in the last five years have established that state highways are notable because the state felt it necessary to single out a roadway for inclusion in their state highway network and funding with tax dollars. The article was only created within the last 48 hours, so deletion at this time before the editors have had a chance to establish the article is not appropriate.  Imzadi  1979   →   17:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Should the wording of WP:USRD/NT be changed then to acknowledge previous precedent? As of right now, the key sentence reads "Secondary state highways and county highways that are part of a statewide system (i.e. the highway numbers do not repeat themselves across the state) may or may not be sufficiently notable to merit a unique article." (emphasis added) I guess I'm just having trouble understanding how a road with .9 miles classified as state secondary, 21.4 miles as rural secondary, and 2.4 miles as supplementary is considered notable. Would KY 3377, a signed rural secondary road, be considered notable, as well? --Millbrooky (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between internal classification and signed reality. The fact that Kentucky might internally designate the road as a secondary road doesn't matter. In Michigan, some roads carry different internal classifications that make them lower priority roads. That classification usually affects truck permits, weight limits and snow-plowing priority, but does not change the signs used on the roads. Kentucky doesn't have have a secondary highway system, not like its neighbor to the south, Tennessee. That state actually has two different route markers: primary highways have a square with the state outline at the bottom, and secondary highways have a rounded-corner triangle marker. Some Tennessee highways are classified as both types, and signed as such. The guideline you cite only says that they may or may not be notable, but the proper course of action here should have been to PROD a new article to give the authors a chance to edit it for notability. If disputed and not updated, the article could then be brought to AfD. I'm advocating that the AfD be closed as keep, and at a later date, the article can be reevaluated on notability grounds to decide sustaining the article or deletion.  Imzadi  1979   →   20:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Most state routes should survive in USRD. -- P C  B  19:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and Withdraw - I guess I chalk this one up to misinterpretation of notability for USRD and an itchy trigger finger. At least for now. --Millbrooky (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The secondary routes that WP:USRD/NT is referring to are the signed, distinct secondary systems such as Missouri's lettered route system and Virginia's secondary routes. Routes classed as secondary in an internal document, while still being signed as part of the same primary system, are not the type of "secondary routes" the guideline is referring to. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - based on past precedent at AfD, almost all state highways are considered notable. Bearian (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2010 (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.