Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unused highways in the United States


 * 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   no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 06:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

List of unused highways in the United States

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Roadcruft, pure and simple. WP:NOT says that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", and yet this list is the epitome of that. Most of this list is sourced to "roadgeek" websites like aaroads.com that are not reliable sources under the Wikipedia definition of the term. The rest is pushing the definition of original research as well.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Categorize and move the info to the respective articles. --Rschen7754 21:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I thought it was an interesting article. It doesn't seem indiscriminate to me. And it also has a lot of references. And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Move information from this article and any subarticles to the articles of the roads involved. Delete the list.  Dough 48  72  03:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete this list once the information is moved elsewhere. The specific examples in this list should be moved to the relevant articles.  The information in the state unused highway lists should be moved to the relevant articles.  V  C  04:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't move and delete. No opinion on keeping or deleting, but attribution requirements prohibit us from moving information from one article to another and then deleting the first.  If we merge information from one article to another, we have to keep the first one in order to maintain a contribution history for attribution purposes.   Nyttend (talk) 12:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Attribution requirements prohibit us from moving creative expressions of information, which is copyrightable and therefore needs a license, not information in and of itself, which is not copyrightable and therefore doesn't need a license. See Copying within Wikipedia .  Which is also why we can take information from reliable sources in the first place to write an article but can't just copy those sources wholesale.  postdlf (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And if text is copied from the article directly, a listing on the talk page of the target article of the contributors to the source article also satisfies attribution, even if the source article is deleted. But if the information itself is copied without moving the exact text, i.e. an editor copies the citation and writes new text from scratch, then there's no attribution requirements.  Imzadi 1979  →   13:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Move information from this article" sounds like "Copy/paste this text". Of course we don't need to keep this article for attribution purposes if we simply write a new account of the same facts in the other articles.  Nyttend (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Impossible to maintain and adds little to no value to the encyclopedia Dave (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   Imzadi 1979   →   16:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   Imzadi 1979   →   16:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * IFF (if and only if) the copyright and attribution issues can be resolved, I would not be against smerging, deleting this, and creating a category instead. Bearian (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you explain the copyright issues that are at play in this article? The only previous mention of copyright in this discussion appears to have been brought up tangentially and already addressed.  V  C  03:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, then I am in favor of a merger. Bearian (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Articles for deletion/List of unused highways in Michigan was closed as keep.  Dough 48  72  15:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That presents one of the problems with deleting this list alone: it functions as a list of lists for states that have their own stand-alone lists, and as a list of content for those that don't. postdlf (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We do not need to delete this list the moment consensus is reached that we should delete the list. It will take time, perhaps months or years, before all the information is incorporated elsewhere.  We can reach consensus now that the list should be deleted and make the appropriate preparations pursuant to that consensus.  V  C  02:58, 4 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! 11:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Facilitates browsing, which is one of the purposes of an encyclopedia. There are many corresponding state articles, so this is just a guide to them plus a place for the content where specific articles have not yet been made. The abandonment of a significant highway is a public even of major environmental importance, about which there are always sources.    DGG ( talk ) 21:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep DGG's explanation for "encyclopedicity" is a good one. I also fail to understand how this list could be regarded as "indiscriminate" information - it's not like an extract from a telephone directory, its inclusion criteria are well-defined and focused. TheGrappler (talk) 16:14, 15 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.