Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of toll roads


 * 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. — CharlotteWebb 23:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

List of toll roads
This nomination includes:

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information, nor is it a directory of places. I argue that this page be deleted as per these reasons. Yuser31415 03:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't really like "listcruft" with too broad of a focus (I'd delete list of unused highways if I were in charge), but this seems to be a reasonably bounded set of notable items. Maybe the bridges should be split off from the roads (and we can argue over a few edge cases), but in general this is a very discriminate list that links to many articles. If you think it's too big, you could consider splitting list of toll roads in the United States or list of toll roads in North America. --NE2 03:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. What's the harm? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't make WP:ILIKEIT arguments, and provide a reason for your comment - AfD is not a vote. Cheers! Yuser31415 03:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm fully aware of that. Per NE2. We've got List of Interstate Highways, List of California State Routes... need I say more? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Clarifying a little would help, yes, although the choice is up to you. WP:ILIKEIT handles this argument. Yuser31415 04:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that having this as a category would be more suitable, if only for maintainability. As such, Merge to Category and redirect.  Otherwise, keep per precedent. --Dennisthe2 04:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Several of the arguments at Categories, lists, and series boxes seem to apply here, specifically about annotations and red links. --NE2 04:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well said - with the added advantage of a suggested "create me". --Dennisthe2 04:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Certainly not an indiscriminate collection of information. Do people just like using that word? Does anyone actually know what indiscriminate means? --- RockMFR 04:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: Per RockMFR, it is certainly not an indiscriminate collection of information. I also happen to like it.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 05:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, properly scoped list, information is useful and in no way indiscriminate. Lists and categories serve different purposes, as NE2 stated. --Dhartung | Talk 06:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I question whether these lists are maintainable. Is this a complete list?  Hard to tell without sources. Resolute 07:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sources are within the articles. There is no need to cite, for example, that the West Virginia Turnpike is a tolled facility when it clearly states in the article itself that it is tolled.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 07:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I don't really want to have to cyphon through hundreds of articles to verify that this list is accurate.  Maintainability remains in question.  Specific to these lists, how can I know that this list is complete? Resolute 07:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't know that it's complete, and that's the point. There at least four countries not even mentioned that I know have toll roads (France, Italy, Spain, Portugal) and surely dozens more.  As I don't see how this list can ever be authoritative, I suggest delete   Emeraude 12:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC) See comment below. Emeraude 12:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see Template:Dynamic list. --NE2 13:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete because incomplete? I'm seeing this argument more frequently, and it baffles me. There is no assertion that lists must be complete in WP:LIST, so I must assume that this is a personal opinion and not an argument from any guideline. --Dhartung | Talk 16:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have an idea Emeraude. Why not contribute to Wikipedia by adding these toll roads instead of taking the easy way out by deleting via a weak AFD? You know, Wikipedia would operate much more smoothly if everyone would constructively contribute to the encylopedia. Just because its incomplete does not mean it should be deleted -- that's why we have editors to help complete the process.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 16:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Emeraude, with all due respect, it is much easier to add these countries and their toll roads than it is to submit an AFD. --Dennisthe2 04:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * [Comment: My point about the incompleteness (real word?) was a reply to the question immediately before, not a reason for deletion. I am not prepared to add other countries and their toll roads because, quite simply, I have neither the time nor resources, and it is most definitely NOT much easier to add them than submit an AfD - anyone know how many toll roads there are in France for example?  However, in view of other comments made I am changing my view to neutral, my main concern being maintainability.] Emeraude 12:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reasonable list which also happens to tie in with the large number of articles on highways. There aren't so many of these that such a list couldn't be maintainable (toll roads rarely become non-toll roads). 23skidoo 17:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per RockMFR. (And well said I must say!) --Falcorian (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the list is verifiable and of limited scope. I also concur with RockMFR's sentiment.-- danntm T C 19:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful and verifiable. TonyTheTiger 21:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Usefull, lots of content and lots of potential. Thatperson 21:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Being a list is not a reason to delete. --Kevin Murray 00:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * keep please the reason for deletion does not make any sense to me at all yuckfoo 20:32, 24 January 2007 (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.