Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unused highways in 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

List of unused highways in Michigan

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Roadcruft, pure and simple. I'm the main editor at WP:MISH, the Michigan State Highways project, and even I think this should go.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - If we are going to AFD this, we may want to consider the other lists of unused highways in the United States.  Dough 48  72  01:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to the list of highways.. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 04:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Clarify I mean the Michigan list of highways, not the US list of unused highways. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 05:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There are three lists of highways for Michigan (four if you count a statewide system of county roads) and a single article that describes the state trunkline highway system.  Imzadi 1979  →   18:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, largely because this was a spinout from a ridiculously long list of unused highways for the entire US, which was split up into various state articles to try and pare the length down. Do we really want a 200kb article for the overall list again? rdfox 76 (talk) 13:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why should that list have existed int the first place. I'm not advocating for re-merging; I'm advocating for deletion. The other lists can be deleted after this one goes.  Imzadi 1979  →   22:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Sourcing showing, no benefit from deletion. Carrite (talk) 01:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT: specifically "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information".  Imzadi 1979  →   18:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge, then delete - There may be some tidbits in this list that might be of note for more major projects. Merge anything useful to main highway/route articles, then delete this article. --  LJ  ↗  05:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That isn't possible, I'm afraid. Per Copying within Wikipedia, we would have to keep the edit history of the article if any of the content were to be reused. See also the essay Merge and delete. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm...didn't think about that. If that's the case, then I would just say delete. There's not that much that would warrant merging after all. --  LJ  ↗  21:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Move information to other articles and delete.  Dough 48  72  03:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sufficienly sourced. "Listcruft" is a subjective argument — a list of used highways is not necessarily much less "crufty".-- Pink Bull  14:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 15:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)




 * Keep- as long as this is sourced, which it is, there's no reason not to consider it an encyclopedic topic worthy of an article. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:07, 1 June 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.