Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M-144 (1937–1939 Michigan highway)


 * 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 redirect to List of state trunkline highways in Michigan. Consensus has tended towards deletion after relisting; however the arguments that redirecting would be a suitable compromise were not explicitly refuted, so I am going with that as a compromise. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  21:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

M-144 (1937–1939 Michigan highway)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Yes, I'm aware this is likely to be a controversial nomination, as the subject is a GA. And yes, WP:GEOROAD does say state and provincial highways are typically notable. However, typically is not the same as always, and I'm thinking this may be an exception. As brought up in the still-unresolved GAR, all of the sources are maps. WP:NGEO explicitly states This guideline specifically excludes maps and tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject.. While I was involved with the GAR, I conducted a search for coverage outside of the maps, and was only able to come up with this, which likely fails WP:SPS. I'm not seeing any way that WP:GNG is met, and I feel like since WP:GEOROAD only typically gives notability to these things, I don't think this one is notable. Given that this is liable to be a controversial nomination, given the GA status and all, let's please keep this civil and avoid any kneejerk !votes. Hog Farm Bacon 06:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 06:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 06:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 06:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * One of the Five Pillars is "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" (emphasis mine). A gazetteer includes lists of state roads. Also it is long-established rock-solid consensus that - despite the "typically" weasel wording of GEOROAD, which is contradicted by the next segment which establishes that only secondary (i.e. in this context, County) roads require secondary sources - all federal and state numbered routes are notable because, and only because, they are federal and state routes. That said there is no reason this cannot become a redirect for now to List of state trunkline highways in Michigan (presumably with an anchor placed for a direct #M-144 piping) without prejudice to restoration if and when additional sources (any additional sources) can be found. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep—per WP:5P, Wikipedia also functions as a gazetteer, and gazetteers cover roads. Deleting this article would open a hole in Wikipedia's coverage of the State Trunkline Highway System in Michigan. Now the nominator takes issue with the fact that the sources for the article are maps. There are over 10,000 American highway articles on Wikipedia, most of which use maps as sources. A significant number of those articles are Featured or Good. Unless we are going to revisit the existence of those thousands of articles, I see no reason to delete this one.  Imzadi 1979  →   06:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Political rhetoric and conspiracy theories about maps and map sourcing aside (see Talk:M-144 (1937–1939 Michigan highway)/GA2) - the state highway system is notable and this discusses a component of it. But due to the size of the article I could see it being merged somewhere else (as I would probably have done if I was the author). --Rschen7754 07:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect per The Bushranger. I concur with everything he says above.  I believe there is only so much you can say about a highway of this length that was only around for two years.  Would an entry on List of state trunkline highways in Michigan convey any less information than is given in this article?  Right now, no. –Fredddie™ 08:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Since The Bushranger changed his !vote, I just wanted to say that I am maintaining my !vote to redirect without prejudice. –Fredddie™ 03:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as separate article or Merge to a new List of former Michigan state highways that can be a WP:USRD/RCS style article for former state highways in Michigan with little to say about them similar to the List of former Maryland state highways family of articles.   Dough   4872   13:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. As several people before me have said, comprehensive coverage of state highway systems is an important part of Wikipedia's function as a gazetteer, and that includes covering minor and short-lived highways. I also don't see an issue with using maps as sources; unlike, say, satellite imagery, maps are curated and choose which roads and places to include and to highlight as more or less significant, and part of the reason that we treat state and federal highways as notable is that maps treat them as more significant. That being said, for roads like this where there's not a lot to say about them, I don't know that we have to cover them in their own article. I like the idea of creating a List of former Michigan state highways for roads like this - there are a few other former Michigan highway articles among the shortest GAs which might work better in a list like that as well. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 18:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect There is no basis for automatic notability for a 0.388-mile stretch of road that had a particular name for a mere two years. What an embarassment. Even if this were still a highway today it's not notable. It's absolutely appalling that anyone would consider nothing but the Rand McNally atlas sufficient for notability, and if there are countless articles like this, yes they need to be revisited too. Wikipedia " combining features of...gazetteers" does not mean that anything that appears on a map is automatically notable, and this article is a massive violation of of guidelines that expect a modicum of significant coverage, and the keep votes have no basis in policy whatsoever. Reywas92Talk 20:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You've just demonstated you have a complete misunderstanding of how road notability works on Wikipedia. The "particular name" was designated as part of a second-level political subdivision's primary highway system; any road today would be absolutely notable. Please re-read the notability standards for numbered highways before opining on them further. Also your claiming that others are saying "anything that appears on a map is automatically notable" is a very disingious case of putting words in other editors' mouths that are not remotely what they said or implied. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:GNG before opining further. You are implying that because state government of Michigan built this road and it appears on maps, it's automatically notable – screw significant coverage! Screw the concept of notability and the GNG! Maybe Michigan needs a list in Category:Lists of state highways in the United States shorter than one mile for this ridiculousness. Reywas92Talk 01:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is exactly what I'm outright stating - not "implying" - because it is consenus for federal and state highways (i.e. first- and second-level political subdivisions) that designation of a route = that route is notable. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Except it is consensus that "This guideline specifically excludes maps and tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject. Still, they do contribute to the satisfaction of the requirement of verifiability." You cannot just pick and choose one part of this guideline to read, while completely ignoring another.
 * Indeed, most roads in the United States are built by the county or cities, and 99% of those are not considered notable. If the state has built it, it is worth at least a mention somewhere, if not more. --Rschen7754 01:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Except we don't know who built it because there are not significant sources establishing any facts about this road! Did the state department of transportation built it? Did they pay for the county or city to build it? Or did they just decide to make it part of the system with a number later? We know nothing about this beyond its route on the map, hence it is not notable. The article says "The first incarnation of M-144 was designated by 1937 to serve as the connector to the state police headquarters" but this has no basis in the source whatsoever – we may have known that the state police HQ was located there, but not the actual purpose of contructing or designating this stretch of road! The sources, being only maps, do not give any history other than the inferrence that it was numbered "by 1937" and de-numbered "in 1939" because of differences in maps published at certain dates. However, the very title of this article is unverified because the cited map dated 1936 does show M-144, so having a title starting in 1937 seems to be inaccurate because it was on the 1936 map and there is no earlier map – or written source – that lacks the 144. WP:ROADOUTCOMES says "Most numbered roadways are acceptable if they can be described beyond the route itself." but when we only have maps, we cannot "describe" anything beyond the route! Reywas92Talk 04:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. After reconsidering the issue, reading the arguments above, and also considering potential precedent-setting, I'm convinced by Dough4872 and TheCatalyst31 that, while I would not shed tears if it were redirected-without-prejudice, this should be kept independently. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So something is notable despite not having a single sentence of prose in secondary sources presented? This warrants a list entry but not a standalone article. Hog Farm Bacon 02:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Except there's already a precedent: "This guideline specifically excludes maps and tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject. Still, they do contribute to the satisfaction of the requirement of verifiability." With no non-map sources, this is not notable. Reywas92Talk 04:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect I'm happy with the idea of articles citing maps, but an article's notability should not be based solely on map entries per WP:NGEO. This article is entirely sourced to map entries. I'm also not entirely sure that it even gets past the fundamental requirement in Verifiability that article subjects must have at least one reliable independent source. Essentially all the sources cited are created or published by the Michigan State Highway Department, which maintained the highway, and arguably aren't independent. The author also seems to have steered uncomfortably close to original research in an effort to squeeze some actual prose out of the maps cited, e.g. "The highway was decommissioned in 1939" is sourced to two 1939 maps, and I assume the road isn't listed in them, but this doesn't actually support the statement in the article without inference from the editor. If we have to stoop that low just to write a few sentences then it isn't possible to write an acceptable standalone article.  Hut 8.5  19:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Questions for, but in reality anyone watching this page could help: In 1931, the McNitt Act required counties to set up county highway commissions and take over 20% of all township roads in the county; that took place from 1931 through 1937. The 1951 McNitt Act act transferred the rest of township roads to the county level.
 * 1) At this point between 1931 and 1937, was MSHD itself maintaining highways or was it still devolved to the counties?
 * 2) Were these 20% of township highways becoming state highways?
 * 3) When did the Ingham County Road Commission name their highways? All at once or in stages?
 * 4) Would it stand to reason that M-144 was a township road promoted to the state highway system by the county?
 * 5) Do we have access to Ingham County Road Commission minutes from the era of M-144?
 * 6) According to List of state trunkline highways in Michigan, there were quite a few highway transfers of jurisdiction, including M-144. What changed?
 * I just did about 10 minutes of research and came up with these questions that I think would fill in some of the perceived holes in this article. –Fredddie™ 22:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * keep per TheCatalyst31 JackFromReedsburg (talk &#124; contribs) 17:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per Imzadi and TheCatalyst31. I also note that there is a discussion going on at the article's talk page regarding it's GA status, which never devolves into its notability.  Onel 5969  TT me 03:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect. An article based solely on maps violates WP:NOR, a core policy. Maps are primary sources. WP:PSTS, part of WP:NOR, directs: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources."  Sandstein   15:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Maps are primary sources certainly not, this doesn't reflect how maps are made. The GIS data is the primary source. Please see Using maps and similar sources in Wikipedia articles. --Rschen7754 18:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , and the map is a faithful representation of that data, or of reality; if doesn't contain original thought. That still makes it a primary source, just like an aerial photo. Per WP:PSTS: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." None of that is found in maps, at least not enough to base an article on. Nothing in the essay you cite changes this.  Sandstein   10:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And again, this does not reflect what maps are made. A cartographer has to decide what elements to include or exclude from a map, and how to label them. That is original thought. --Rschen7754 17:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * But you can't draw any conclusions from that except for "such and such road was on such and such map in such year". Hog Farm Bacon 17:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Is that no different than saying "such and such writings was on such and such newspaper in such year"? JackFromReedsburg (talk &#124; contribs) 17:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not enough to contribute to notability, though. WP:NGEO excludes maps from notability-generating coverage, and the essay on using maps linked above says The presence of an object on a map is not sufficient by itself to show notability of a subject..  So I think there's a really good argument that if we can't source this thing to non-map sources, it can't meet the notability requirements.  I have not seen a single sentence of prose written about this subject in reliable sources. Hog Farm Bacon 17:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think anybody has argued that just because it's on a map, it's notable - in fact, that is why most city streets get deleted off English Wikipedia. But the notability of the state highway system is not disputed, and this article describes a portion of it. --Rschen7754 21:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The entry in List of state trunkline highways in Michigan also documents that the subject was part of the state highway system, we don't need a standalone article for that.  Hut 8.5  21:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or weak merge - Having a page for a stretch of highway that was less than half a mile long, and existed for less than two years, over 80 years ago, does not provide value to anyone. There aren't even any references for the years that it was active! The second version of the M-144, which existed for 33 years, doesn't have its own page but is redirected to the M-18. If there is a page about the physical stretch of road as it exists today, this should be merged into it. Otherwise it should simply be deleted. TimeEngineer (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete has nothing to do with M-18 and not notable. It's kind of like how in WPTC, we don't have an article for Phillippe. --Hurricane Tracker 495 21:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Not notable, very ephemeral at best. This looks to me like a way to have state highway funds build a road from the state police building to a southbound interchange. Cxbrx (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2020 (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.