Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nevada State Route 485


 * 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. WP:ITEXISTS is a valid keep argument if the nomination is based on a subject "not existing". It has been demonstrated that this road does indeed exist. However, if someone has a policy based reason why the article for this road should not exist then they are free to renominate it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Nevada State Route 485

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )
 * There is no evidence that this road actually exists. Short article as well, and as a nonexistent road fails WP:GNG. -- P C  B  23:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that this road actually exists. Short article as well, and as a nonexistent road fails WP:GNG. -- P C  B  23:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I think this page is worth keeping. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - WikiProject U.S. Roads/Nevada/History notes has evidence that SR 485 existed and some more research can be done to verify this route existed.  Dough 48  72  20:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per dough. --  Admr Boltz  21:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dough.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. An absence of references does not equal nonexistiance. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. It existed. NV DOH 1978-79 map (grid C5/C6), which also shows that it formerly SR 44 before the renumbering. --  LJ   ↗  10:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: the references and keep !votes above show that the road existed, and hence that the nominator was wrong. How exactly do any of them show notability? WP:ITEXISTS is not a valid reason for inclusion. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See USRD Notability Guidelines which state that any state numbered highway is inherently notable. --  Admr Boltz  15:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Getting better, although as a project notability essay with limited talk page consensus it doesn't carry that much weight (and I notice that WikiProject U.S. Roads/Nevada/History notes contains a fair number of redlinked state routes). Any chance of better sources to at least get close to the relevant guideline? I looked online but found almost nothing. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That guideline was formed out of the precedents set at VfD/AfD over the years. See WP:USRD/P for details.  Imzadi 1979  →   16:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST with regard to other Nevada state routes on the USRD/Nevada/History notes page shouldn't affect whether or not this article is kept or deleted. Saying that the fact there's a lot of state routes that are redlinks, and therefore this one shouldn't be kept, seems rather like !voting to demolish the house while it's being built. - The Bushranger One ping only
 * I haven't !voted at all, or said that this article shouldn't be kept, which you should know if you'd read my comments properly. If the redlinks were to be filled with articles that don't meet WP:GNG, I was say something similar if they appeared at AfD. The fact is that there's no policy- or guideline- based reason to keep. The only sources are a map and a page that doesn't mention the road, and the only arguments given by keep !voters are its existence and an essay. Something's wrong somewhere. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:03, 13 February 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.