Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of exits on Highway 401 (Ontario) (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. No consensus to delete, the discussion wrt merging can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

List of exits on Highway 401 (Ontario)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Articles for deletion/Precedents - Highway exits should be listed in an article on a highway, not as a separate article, except for some highly notable ones (e.g. the Springfield Interchange near Washington, D.C.).

This does not deserve its own article. There are sections that could be removed from the Highway 401 (Ontario) article - such as section 10 and 12 - if this article were merged with that one. Some of that information is superfluous as well. Rschen7754 (T C) 05:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to highway article, per nom. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 05:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Works better as a standalone list, would make the highway article far too long. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  06:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Interstate 10 in Texas, Interstate 5 in California... the headers on this article take up too much space, and the speculation about an extension to Michigan doesn't belong. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Obvious candidates to be split into similar articles. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  06:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Its about time that a new precedent is set, its common sense that in longer articles, the exit lists should be split into new articles. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  06:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep at first, I thought this should be deleted but... this is a viable spinout article. I can't see the H-401 article being split up into by county articles. Sceptre (talk) 06:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am with Sceptre on this one.  On its face it should be deleted but it is a subarticle serving the purpose of reducing clutter within the parent article.  JBsupreme (talk) 07:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The precedent the nom points to is mostly to do with individual articles on each exit on a highway - which is indeed excessive. To me, the logical way to mention exits on a highway is via a sourced list in the main article, or, in the case of long highways like this with lots of exits, via a split list article to keep the main article a reasonable size. Individual exits do not need articles, but a summary of them seems fine. ~ mazca  t 10:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Valid spin off. The main article lists the biggest/main exists, this list gives complete information. I personally dislike articles on roads, but if you're gonna have them, you should be comprehensive. - Mgm|(talk) 11:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - As an aside, what policy is actually being given for deletion, all the nominator has cited is a page of common outcomes (as the page is correctly called), not really a valid reason. "Precedents defined here should be used with caution — using this essay as the sole argument in an AfD is disputed at best" Jenuk1985  |  Talk  14:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Having just a table for an article makes for a very poor article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 15:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of "List of.." articles out there, many of which have made it to featured list status, why should this be an exception? Jenuk1985  |  Talk  15:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. A separate article is an indiscriminate collection of info. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please explain which bit of NOT actually applies here? Further more please explain how this page is actually indiscriminate? Jenuk1985  |  Talk  20:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a random list of exits. Having the exit list on the route article connects it with something that is notable. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you aware of what "random" (and "indiscriminate") means? --NE2 20:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Nothing new to support deletion/merging since last AfD attempt. Merging exit list (33kb) into the main article (66kb) would result in excessively sized article (about 100kb). Dl2000 (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep reduces clutter in parent article, and is referenced to reliable sources. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge - Exit lists for a highway should be a part of the main article and not a separate, unnessecary list. Dough4872 (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is this given as a guideline? At the moment it is an appropriate split from the main article. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  19:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CRWP calls for exit lists to be included in the main article and WP:ELG says nothing about separate articles for exit lists. Dough4872 (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The parent article is 68KB long, this article is 33KB long, merging the two together will create an article that is about 100KB long, well into the guideline for splitting articles at WP:SPLIT. Seriously common sense should be applied here. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  19:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If the articles were merged there would be some duplicated info that could be removed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am getting the impression you feel that articles should never be split, and if extra information needs to be added, then tough? Thats not how WP works. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  20:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles should be split only when necessary. This is not one of those cases. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read Splitting. --NE2 20:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep because the list is so long. Since the nominator doesn't want this deleted, why was it taken to articles for deletion? --NE2 19:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * AFD is enforceable. merge is not. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A merge result from an AFD is no more enforceable than any other merging method. The only "enforceable" outcomes of an AFD debate are keep or delete, anything beyond that are merely suggestions on that course of action to take beyond the debate. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  20:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not correct; the article can be summarily sent back to AFD, and any recreations of the article can be speedy redirected / deleted. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's correct; can you provide a citation to policy? --NE2 20:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CSD. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Which of those pertains to merging? --NE2 21:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a logical extension of it; see also afd-mergeto. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe to you it's a "logical extension", but enough disagree that you'll have to ignore your logic. --NE2 22:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have always considered it advisory. It can sometimes be pretty strong advice, not lightly disregarded, as when a discussion and the closing makes clear that if its not going to be merged there will be strong consensus to delete when renominated.  DGG (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- The exit list is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia, so deletion is not an option, and merging would make the Highway 401 article obnoxiously long and would probably end up being worth of a split. Either way, we at USRD are going to have to figure out what to do with long exit lists in articles.  But for ease and sanity, keep this. -- M PD T / C 22:26, 13 April 2009 (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.