Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latham Circle (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Personally I think this is a bit nuts and discussion of a merger should probably continue, but it seems pretty clear the consensus here favors keeping this. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Latham Circle
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable interchange/traffic circle.  Dough 48  72  01:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 *  Delete Neutral interchange is not notable. Sources are either primary, self-published or dead. --  Admr Boltz  02:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC) I no longer have an opinion regarding this AfD. --  Admr  Boltz  04:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.   ArcAngel    (talk) ) 07:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - As with the first AfD, the sources do indicate notability. Just because one hyperlink became dead doesn't magically mean it doesn't exist.--Oakshade (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The circle may be worth mentioning in the U.S. Route 9 in New York, New York State Route 2, and Latham, New York articles, but it does not need its own article.  Dough 48  72  00:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SIGCOV you need to prove notability by including reliable secondary sources. The sources listed (that work) are either Primary or self-published (non WP:RS). And yes a Google News search provides hits regarding the circle, they just mention that things are near the circle, or directions that include the circle, but nothing that I saw on my glance that actually talk specifically about the circle. The deadlink seems to only cite the construction date, which while it helps with coverage, a lone RS reference in my mind does not meet "significant coverage". --  Admr Boltz  01:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * All the sources are secondary. Unless Latham Circle wrote about itself, it's impossible for there to be "primary" sources about it. --Oakshade (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The State Department (and Federal) highway administrations would be considered primary. --  Admr Boltz  04:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The footnote for sources specifically mentions "reports by government agencies" as acceptable. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Where, I do not see a footnote stating this at WP:PRIMARY. --  Admr Boltz  04:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In WP:GNG's N. It states as examples of acceptable sources "reports by government agencies." --Oakshade (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. --  Admr Boltz  04:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to belabor the point, but I've been blocked by two edit conflicts and wanted to bring up the following points: government reports are not referred to by WP:PRIMARY (it mentions accounts of political decisions, but that's a completely different thing), and WP:PRIMARY does not absolutely prohibit primary sources. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep well-sourced article about the best-known intersection in the Albany, New York area. Bearian (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because it is well known does not mean it can't be covered elsewhere.  Dough 48  72  01:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, for the reasons described in the last AfD: the subject is referenced by reliable sources (namely, the New York and U.S. departments of transportation, and the Times Union), and it's linked by other articles. I'm also finding other sources that aren't yet in the article,, --Gyrobo (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep My opinion hasn't changed since the previous AfD (my username then was wadester16). I'm of the opinion that an article that gives solid, sourced information that doesn't hurt anybody or take away from other articles shouldn't be deleted. As for where this could be moved, where do you move it? To Latham, New York? To US Route 9 in New York? To New York Route 2? To all of them, and outright repeat content? Best off leaving it as its own article and refer to it in all those articles.  upstate NYer  06:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In New Jersey, several traffic circles are described in the article of the town they are in. For example, White Horse Circle is mentioned in White Horse, New Jersey.  Dough 48  72  19:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Several articles link to the White Horse Circle redirect. If there were reliable sources describing that circle's history, having it as a separate article would be pretty useful. WP:LOCAL deals with the logic behind that. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason why the Latham Circle can't be mentioned in the Latham article, along with the technical road details in the US 9 and NY 2 articles.  Dough 48  72  02:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There would be a duplication of content if this article was deleted, because the circle would need to be redefined in the context of each article that presently links to it; there would also be no one location where coverage of the subject would be comprehensive. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:38, 5 February 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.