Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota State Highway 91 (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Many comments relied on the statement in WP:GEOROAD that state highways are "typically notable", a formulation that is defeasible in cases where no sources can be found. However, editors did find coverage in independent reliable sources to support notability in this case. RL0919 (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Minnesota State Highway 91
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Previously kept in 2006 but modern standards were not applied and the article has not been materially improved since. Fails WP:GNG. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Newspapers.com returns 20+ results and it's clear that WP:BEFORE was not performed with this drive-by nomination.  Sounder Bruce  17:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you provide even one of those newspaper sources which give coverage indicative of notability? The article from 1938 you added to the page doesn't do that, the topic of this article only gets a passing mention. This nomination was not drive-by. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course it was. It was pointed out to you as an example of precedent and you nominated it barely 30 minutes later. Not nearly enough time to search Google, Newspaper.com, and ProQuest for the multitude of terms the route goes by (Minnesota 91, SH 91, State Highway 91, Route 91, Minnesota Highway 91, etc. etc.), let alone to read a couple of the returned articles. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Precedent needs to be based on policies and guidelines, precedent can't be based on precedent. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Policies and guidelines are written based on precedent, not the other way around, which would be scope creep. See also the definition of the word: "an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances." - Floydian τ ¢ 19:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thats a fundamental misunderstanding of our basic principles... Policies and guidelines are written based on consensus, not precedent. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And the consensus is that your behaviour is disruptive and these fly-by nominations will mostly be closed as an overwhelming keep. You can bludgeon all you want with your interpretation of policy and guideline, but maybe it's time to back away from the horse (pun unintentional)? - Floydian τ ¢ 14:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless you can link a diff which says that there is consensus that my "behaviour" is disruptive I suggest you retract that false representation of consensus. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's right here - Floydian τ ¢ 17:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You appear to have mistakenly linked this page instead of one which contains the consensus you claim exists. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it was very much intentional. - Floydian τ ¢ 16:05, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this a joke of some kind or are you making a mockery of WP:NPA and WP:CONSENSUS? There is no consensus on this page that my behavior is disruptive. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There is, whether or not you choose to see it isn't my problem. Feel free to nominate "300-400 articles for deletion" since you're so confident in your blind optimism. Watch out for the boomerang, whatever/wherever your next target might be. This is getting mighty old, and most of us have actual content to add to this encyclopedia. Floydian τ ¢ 18:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Both of you need to stop. We can tell you despise one another, but this arguing is not going to change the outcome here (I say as the sole dissenting vote). Take it to ANI. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per SounderBruce. Also, I was under the impression that roads maintained at the state level were inherently notable, even without references beyond state Departments of Transportation. If not, an RFC is probably in order. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * not inherently notable, typically notable. Different standard. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I cannot imagine a situation where it is not notable, person who did not sign their name. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You can not imagine a situation in which it would have significant coverage in less than three independent WP:RS? You can't imagine the current situation? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Correct. It meets GEOROAD easily. This discussion is quickly entering a SNOW close threshold. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 03:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Meeting GEOROAD =/= notable, thats not ambiguous either. Something can clearly meet GEOROAD and not be notable. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Minnesota.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per WP:GEOROAD, which is part of the notability guideline, “International road networks (such as the International E-road network), Interstate, national, state and provincial highways are typically notable.” The precedent set at WP:USRD/P has illustrated this notability multiple times. In addition, per WP:5P, Wikipedia is a gazetteer, which would include geographical features such as roads. State highways are notable enough for an article as the state DOT deems the road important enough for automobile transportation by maintaining it and assigning it a number. State highways are mentioned in maps by both the DOT and third-party map companies such as Rand McNally and are often mentioned in news sources, some archives of which are not readily accessible to editors. As mentioned above, this road does appear in numerous news sources.  Dough   4872   19:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GEOROAD and Dough's reasons. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep State highways are presumed to be notable based on GEOROAD. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You misrepresent GEOROAD. "Typically notable" =/= "presumed to be notable" Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep—according to the Minnesota House Research Department in 2005, there are about 135,000 mi of roadway in the state of Minnesota. They also report that there are only 11,897 mi of state trunk highways (Minnesota's term for a state highway) in the state, about 9% of the total mileage in the state. More recently, MnDOT states that the trunk highways are 8% of the roadways in the state, but carry 58% of all traffic. These statistics are illustrative of a key point, that state highways are worthy of note because they're just more important than the rest of the roadways in the state. I would call that notability. This has been the operating precedent for over 15 years as documented at WP:ROADOUTCOMES, and this is what GEOROAD recognizes.Beyond this, it appears that the nominator didn't conduct a proper BEFORE review if respondents here can find so many news sources to affirm notability under the GNG. I would argue that GNG is just a default, a "when all else fails, this is a good standard to apply", and not the only guideline to apply in dealing with the decision to have stand-alone articles. Sadly, Minnesota doesn't have an article on its system as a system, akin to Michigan State Trunkline Highway System in Michigan, but it does have the lists that form a second tier in the coverage of the indisputably notable Minnesota State Trunk Highway System, and the individual articles exist to provide consistent coverage of the components of the system without running afoul of WP:SIZE and in keeping with our usage of WP:Summary style. Taken all together, this article should be kept both per past precedent and per a proper review of online news sources. (Who knows what's still out there trapped on paper or microfilm?)  Imzadi 1979  →   23:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "I would call that notability." well we at wikipedia do not... See WP:NOTABILITY. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Speak for yourself and not the whole project. Your interpretation of WP:GNG and WP:V is in the minority it seems (see also, for example, the SNOW closed proposal at WP:VPP from yesterday) - Floydian τ ¢ 14:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "This early WP:SNOW close is largely a reflection of the way the question was presented; it should not be taken as prejudicial aginst other RfCs regarding how we handle unsourced content." Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * SNOW keep per WP:GEOROAD and the nominator's drive-by nominations of similar articles, and per the sources found. --Rschen7754 01:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GEOROAD, and 15+ years and thousands of articles' worth of precedent. The nominator would do well to read and digest some of the feedback they've been getting from the WP:USRD edit community lately. Highway 89 (talk) 03:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of state highways in Minnesota until such time that sufficient sourcing is identified to meet GNG. Straight from Notability (highways): Interstate, U.S., and primary state highways are generally notable. However, that does not mean an article about them will pass Wikipedia notability guidelines. The fact that the road has been adopted into a major network of highways is the result of a road's notability, not the cause. Well before the article is nominated for Good Article the article should explain what makes this road notable. Specifically, the article should answer the question, "why was this road built in the first place?", and "why are the taxpayers asked to keep spending money to keep the road maintained?" If the article does not answer the question of why does this road exist, that is grounds for deletion of the article. and Secondary state highways and county highways that are part of a statewide system (i.e. the highway numbers do not repeat themselves across the state) are generably notable. These highways are notable enough to warrant their own article, but generally these should be kept to a list if very little information is available.


 * I'm not a fan of how these AfDs were done to prove a point, but I am also concerned how road editors appear to have decided they alone are the arbiters of what roads are notable. We went through this with train stations, and the resulting RfC revealed that the wider community had dramatically different views on "inherent notability" than the small group of editors who faithfully showed up at every train station AfD to say "you can't delete it because we always keep train station articles". Just the same, the nom should start an RfC on this at WT:N or elsewhere, rather than trying to antagonize road editors. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If I were trying to make a point I would have nominated 300-400 articles for deletion, not three. I am trying my hardest not to antagonize road editors. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I strongly encourage you to start an RfC on this issue. That's the best way to decide this question. Individual AfDs get far fewer eyes and just turn into shouting matches when people try to evaluate longstanding consensus and such. I would know, I've been there and done that myself. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I will probably end up taking that advice, seems a simpler route than getting the roads regulars banned from AfD which is the road they are trodding down... Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As someone who nominated a road article for deletion earlier this year, I could not disagree more with your assertion that we always vote to keep. --Rschen7754 00:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The "always keeping" was referring to editors at train station AfDs. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Coverage of the highway exists:
 * - Use WP:GALE
 * - Use WP:GALE
 * I also note the other keep voters notes about this article meeting WP:GEOLAND, my interpretation of "typically notable" is to allow the exceptions of short 3-digit highways and the like, not for 2 digit state highways. If 2 digit state highways are trending not-notable an RfC is in order. Jumpytoo Talk 19:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've added some content to the article based on the above sources (at least, the ones I could access), along with a few others. -- Kinu t/c 20:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've added some content to the article based on the above sources (at least, the ones I could access), along with a few others. -- Kinu t/c 20:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep of course. State highways are generally notable and it makes sense to have articles for all of them, instead of having articles for most but redirecting some to lists. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 21:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per at this and the other similarly-nominated state highway articles:  Per WP:5P, Wikipedia contains features of a gazetteer, and an article containing textual information about a roadway deemed of importance on the highest subnational level is such a feature. Quoting WP:ROADOUTCOMES:  It is customary for this and other articles supported by WP:USRD to indicate information about not only the route itself (e.g., major intersections), but also its history and upkeep. This information can be compiled not only from primary sources (e.g., the respective state's transportation authority), but also from secondary sources (e.g., coverage from newspapers). I concede that some articles about highways do not presently contain this information, and that sourcing for the early history of a highway may be somewhat difficult to find for a highway designated in the 1930s. However, "difficult" is not "impossible", as has been shown by the providing of relevant sources above. Such issues are WP:SURMOUNTABLE and are not reasons for deletion, as noted at the discussion of many similar articles that have been kept as listed at WP:USRD/P. -- Kinu  t/<i style="color:red">c</i> 01:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This might be the single worst AfD argument I have ever encountered from an admin, congrats (just FYI the former record holder is Rschen7754). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Without a rationale, why should the closing admin care that you think this way? WP:BLUDGEON. --Rschen7754 06:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Obvious bait is obvious bait. You know better than that, disappointed in you. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So can we add entrapment to your list of WP:NOTHERE? - Floydian τ ¢ 16:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)*


 * Keep per WP:GEOROAD Bruxton (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.