Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan


 * 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. There is clearly no consensus for outright deletion. Redirecting or merging is a definite possibility, but that should be worked out on the talk page. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Archive_15 is now against this type of list. As such, it is also listed at WP:FLRC. The key content from the list has already been merged into Marquette County, Michigan. As list creator, I'm asking that this now unpopular list article be removed. Imzadi1979 (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think it's eligible for speedy deletion under WP:G7. If you like, you can try tagging the page with . — Rankiri (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment — I don't want to shortcut the processes, because of community opinion outside of the project sustains the existence of the list, then that's an acceptable outcome too. Imzadi1979 (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not eligible for G7 speedy deletion: CSD explanations, G7 says that it "[d]oes not apply to long-standing articles or quality articles not created by mistake. Such articles were duly submitted and released by the author and have become part of the encyclopedia, obviating others who otherwise would have written an article on the subject." BencherliteTalk 09:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking for it to be deleted. I'm asking for a discussion over whether it should. The parent project says yes, but I disagree. I've brought the article to another forum for a wider consensus on the issue. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, posted my message under the wrong person's comments... I was intending to reply to Rankiri. BencherliteTalk 22:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Marquette County, Michigan. There is nothing wrong with the list, but the parent article already contains most of its information and is well within the limits of WP:SIZE. I still have doubts about the necessity of this AfD discussion as it looks like an uncontroversial technical issue that has little to do with specific policy violations. — Rankiri (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The parent article didn't contain the information until earlier today. WP:USRD has said that these lists shouldn't exist, but if the community consensus here says they should, I can un-merge the information. Please note that the list went through a WP:FLRC already that came out against merging the list into the county article. I'm looking for a wider range of discussion to see if the overall community, not a single wikiproject or a single process (FLC/FLRC) says they should be merged. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Marquette County, Michigan - Per above. ---Dough4872 22:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * AfD can't enforce redirect/merges. It can only determine deletions. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC) The Article has already been merged. The term would not be a valid search term, failing RfD, so shall the article be deleted? Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Such outcomes are perfectly acceptable. See WP:GD and the very first paragraph in WP:AFD. — Rankiri (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete list. The nominator is clearly committed to improving wikipedia, to the point that they are willing to see their own Featured List deleted, provided that there is consensus for the content itself to be contained in the county's article. I like the look of the Marquette County article, and therefore support deletion. As an aside, I imagine that this discussion will be the forerunner for mass merging, blanking and speedy deletion of these sorts of lists. It was very important to take at least one of them to AfD, to ensure there was wider consensus for the type of merge being carried out. WFCforLife (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect There are over 3000 counties in the United States. We don't want 3000 lists. --Rschen7754 09:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep would otherwise unbalance the country article. It is odd to still see arguments based on how many articles we would need, as if w3000 lists were something we could not accommodate. AS long as there are people to write them, what's the objection--such arguments contradict the policy of  NOT PAPER  DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep while I am rather ambivalent as to whether the list stays or is merged somewhere, I feel the county article is the wrong place to put it. A balanced county article would not under any circumstance contain a list of highways, although it might have a short mention in the prose. Consider if Marquette County was to be improved to GA standards—then clearly this list would have to go somewhere else. Is it suitable to create a list of highways in Michigan, or is that going to be too long a list? The problem is not so much that the US Highways WikiProject can't try to establish standards for what sorts of lists they want, but they have no "authority" over county articles. Quite the contrary: they will have a very biased view on what is important, since their interests will over-fucus on roads. I would like to see a more constructive solution to the problem than has been presented so far. For instance, an article such as road transport in Marquette County, Michigan might be able to comply to my objections, while being much broader than just state highways and could contain history, county routes etc. Arsenikk (talk)  00:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As it is now, the county article isn't dominated by the highway article. --Rschen7754 01:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was suggested at this article's previous FLRC that the list should contain the county roads, the only problem is that in Michigan, the state, the counties and cities are the only jurisdictions that maintain roads. This county is larger than Rhode Island, and it contains over a 1000 separate roads that aren't under state or city maintenance. Personally, I would prefer the list to remain as is and un-merge what has been added to the county article. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as a general principle for this type of article - Michigan as a state is a bit funny but here goes... if I understand correctly, the "List of state highways in..." articles are for the chop, but the "List of county routes in..." articles are for keeping. Whereas the "List of highways in..." articles are going to have the state/US/Interstate bits merged off into the article for the actual county, leaving just the county information, and hence the article will be renamed "List of county routes in...". I don't really understand the rationale behind the changes to the "List of highways in..." type articles because I think that the result of making those changes will be less useful for the reader, whilst not actually changing the number of articles on Wikipedia at all. And I'm not sure that the actual county articles should contain road information - some counties are very populous so there is already a lot to talk about - rst20xx (talk) 01:44, 27 January 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.