Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Highway No. 6 (Taiwan)


 * 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. TravellingCari 02:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

National Highway No. 6 (Taiwan)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Highway does not even exist. Even if it did exist, I question whether this merits its own article.  Enigma  message 21:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep if it can be verified that the highway actually is under construction as the article says. Numbered highways are generally considered notable. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. per WP:NTRAN. Zero Kitsune (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep -- We have several times had AFD discussions concerning proposed railways. I have consistently voted that an article on a proposed railway is legitimate, but articles on stations on them are not until the line is under construction (or at least authorised and funded).  We have articles on main roads in Britain and America.  I thus see no objection to an article on a road under construction, which the article claims this one to be.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep if a reliable reference establishes that this is a real project. Fg2 (talk) 10:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep and expand. Numbered highways are notable, especailly natoinal ones. Needs sourcing (the one source listed is a non-English government home page it seems). I see nothing to suggest this is a hoax article. 23skidoo (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep irrelevent that it's still underconstruction, valid topic for an encyclopaedia, sourced, reasonably written. That there's probably not enough about it now to reach FA is a red herring. Wily D  12:23, 22 October 2008 (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.