Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 999


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 00:55Z 

Pennsylvania Route 999

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No indication of notability for this nine mile long stretch of highway in Pennsylvania Edeans 23:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per my comments at Articles for deletion/Minnesota State Highway 127. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per TMF and the links  V 6 0  VTalk · VDemolitions 00:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as a highway that the state has numbered and marked for motorists. If you're worrying about notability, think of it as summary style: we could have a large article, list of State Routes in Pennsylvania, that certainly has "multiple non-trivial sources". Splitting is then an organizational matter that cannot affect whether the information should be on Wikipedia. --NE2 01:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To the nominator Wikipedia is not paper.  V   6   0   VTalk ·  VDemolitions 01:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Is there any state in the Union that fails to "number and mark" those public byways for which they have financial (i.e., construction and maintenance) responsibility?  If we accept this public budgetary argument of notability, are not all of the persons on a state's public welfare rolls similarly notable, and similarly entitled to WP articles?  Edeans 01:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. But there are some states that designate a portion of a state highway (example Pennsylvania Route 60) to be maintained by another commission (in this case PTC).  Those commissions also do their part to sign the highways as well.  V 6 0  VTalk ·  VDemolitions 01:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Specially designated portions of highways, due to cultural or historical significance, are not at issue here (like the Lincoln Heritage Trail (Oops! No article! How did that happen??)). Edeans 02:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Funding is a complicated issue; most (or all?) states have a state aid system, in which the state provides funding to local governments for local improvements. These are not marked by the state. Similarly, many states choose not to sign some of the more minor state highways. And in a few states, the numbers are assigned to and marked along major highways, regardless of whether the state maintains them. Essentially, a numbered and signed state highway is a highway that the state not only (usually) maintains, but has decided that it is useful to mark it as part of a system for motorist navigation. --NE2 02:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per NE2 et al. We are working on a solution for articles like these currently at WT:USRD, and I please ask that we be allowed to come to consensus in finding a solution to all concerns.  -- M PD T / C 01:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per all. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * delete --many a topic belongs in WP as a part of an article that is not N by itself, and this solution has been used repeatedly. It has the advantage of avoiding these debates. None the less, we have to decide on the matter that is in front of us, which is this article about something with nothing much to say about it.DGG 02:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you say about an article like California State Route 37? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sure, this highway was constructed, but so was the crappy road in front of my house. And so was my house. And so was the sandwich I had for lunch today. The key to inclusion is not truth, but importance. Salad Days 03:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a strawman, since none of those were deemed important enough by the government to be marked on signs for the benefit of travelers. --NE2 03:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The road in front of my house has government signs displaying it. And my house number was painted into the street by government employees. Salad Days 03:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, a strawman; there is a major difference between a standard street sign and a signed numbered route, which is an additional "layer" of navigational help. --NE2 03:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So you claim that all numbered routes are inherently notable. That's lovely, but I fail to see why this particular stretch of road deserves an article when its simple mention would suffice on list of State Routes in Pennsylvania. Salad Days 03:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you realize how long the list would be if all the individual articles were merged there? --NE2 03:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the articles contain minutae which an encyclopedia does not need; I don't see that to be relevant. Salad Days 03:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What would you remove from this article? --NE2 03:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in the article that a detailed map would fail to provide, other than the date it was created. Salad Days 03:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A map would not allow the reader to click on the place names for more information. We use wikilinks in articles to interconnect them. --NE2 03:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Google maps provides a quite detailed perspective of virtually any location. We appear to have a fundamental disagreement about what this site provides. Let's get a divorce. Salad Days 03:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. State routes are notable.  --UsaSatsui 04:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per TMF, V60, NE2, MPD, et. al links •   master_son  Lets talk  06:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. State highways are notable. —Scott5114↗ 07:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Highways make up the backbone of an areas road network, and are about as significant as railway lines in terms of usage and importance. While there are too many roads and streets to justify articles on every one of those, articles on numbered highways are reasonably discriminate. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep If this is to be deleted, then any other numbered highway should be deleted for the reason given.  Whammies Were Here (PYLrulz) 11:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This section of roadway fails notability. Apparently there has been no coverage in reliable and independent sources where it is a primary subject. There is absolutely no Wikipedia policy that every section of road with a number on it is inherently notable so that it doesn't need to satisfy the basic notability criterion. The government pays for and puts numbers on lots of things, such as toll booths and salt spreading trucks. Signs are pretty cheap. There are marker signs on every mile of interstate, but that does not entitle every mile of interstate to its own article. There are articles about sections of state higheway less than 1/3 of a mile long, and articles about county highways are defended with the same arguments as for longer statw highway sections. The notability arguments do not go beyond "ILIKEIT" and the joy of making an article out of every datum in a state database of numbered roads. Inkpaduta 15:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh really, have you read the ILIKEIT essay? I argued for notability here, I pointed out that the state highways form the backbone of the state's transportation infrastructure, and that they are notable because of this. Trying to dismiss all the "keep" arguments by labelling them as "ILIKEIT" is really very insulting. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Deleting opens up a maelstrom of deletions to all road articles, with the exceptions of someone's vague idea of notability.  I-295 isn't very notable (as in no one talks about it here in St. Pete), yet it just recently attained GA-class status.  Would that need to be deleted too because it's not known outside of the Delaware Valley?  Please think about these things before we delete something like this.  It may be some backroad somewhere, but notability is a subjective term that could lead to much more harm than good. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 16:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There is a precedent to keeping roads at WP:USRD/P and, per EaglesFanInTampa, dealing with the subjective notability opinions of the thousands of highway articls one at a time would be a nightmare. Roads are inherently notable. --Oakshade 22:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, not entirely sure if this is supposed to be a "point" nomination or not, but numbered state highways and routes should be notable. (jarbarf) 23:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The state of Pennsylvania has asserted that this road is important enough to designate it as a primary state highway.  Krimpet 20:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Okay, this road exists. So what? Let's say I made an article on a farm, and the only thing I said was "This is a farm. It was established in 1900. It covers 10000 acres. It is on the border between Kansas and Oklahoma. It recieves farm subsidies from the government". That would be most certainly deleted. But because it's a road, it gets kept? And this kind of blatant votestacking doesn't help. Seriously, what is with the "OMG EVIL PEOPlE ARE GONNA DELETE OUR ROAD ARTICLES!" -Amarkov moo! 21:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Your non sequitur does not help. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I fully agree. I dispute, however, that this unhelpful non sequitur exists. And refuting everything I said with one sentence is no more helpful. -Amarkov moo! 21:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Farms are not maintained by the state and given a number. One farm is not, by itself, important to the local economy. One farm is not known and used by thousands of people in one day. That is how it is a non sequitur. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is arguing "Cruft Blvd. in Podunk, Idaho" deserves an article because it's a road, and therefore notable (or if they are, they're seriously mistaken). State highways, though, are another matter.  If they weren't important, they wouldn't be state routes in the first place.  That's the basis behind the "State routes are inherently notable" debate: That being enshrined into law makes them so.  The comparisons to farms and mailboxes and the like are just silly, because it assumes that if all roads aren't notable, none of them are.   There are some notable roads, just like there are some notable farms (though I'm unaware of notable mailboxes at this time).  As I mentioned in the other AfD, it may be a good idea to go to mediation or some other dispute resolution process and hammer out some notability criteria for roads.  --UsaSatsui 22:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not my point. My point is that other things with this amount of information would be deleted, and a road should be no different. Plus, all your arguments for why a road must be notable apply to pretty much every room in any City Hall with a big enough population. For instance, let's take the legislative chamber of a random city. Thousands of people use it every day, and it's very important to the local economy, as they make laws which regulate it. It may or may not be given a number, but being given a number is really not even close to notability. -Amarkov moo! 22:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * However, there is little notable about a City Hall. Specifically, there are 5400+ road articles about roads in the U.S. Do you believe that they should be deleted? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "If you're worrying about notability, think of it as summary style: we could have a large article, list of State Routes in Pennsylvania, that certainly has "multiple non-trivial sources". Splitting is then an organizational matter that cannot affect whether the information should be on Wikipedia." --NE2 22:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You're arguing from an interpretiation of Summary style that I disagree with. I agree that, for it to work well, there have to be somewhat relaxed standards for notability, which is why many road articles certainly deserve to be kept. But this does not have multiple reliable sources, so it fails WP:N. And besides, the only information in the article is date of establishment, date of completion, and location. Summary style does not demand that you split everything out, and this is one of the things which should not be. -Amarkov moo! 22:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Summary style and notability conflict in this and other similar cases. Though if you went into newspaper archives, you probably could find many independent sources, such as coverage of the state takeover, and the building of the Lancaster and Millersville Turnpike as a private toll road in the 19th century. is a starting point. --NE2 22:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact remains, there is next to no information on this topic. Regardless of summary style, I do not think it should have a seperate article. And the fact that the notice that the precedent was being challenged has to be so blatantly biased (and calling this a vote, no less) does not help. -Amarkov moo! 22:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are you "voting" to delete if you believe it should be merged? --NE2 22:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Because my experience is that in contentious issues, a merge consensus is declared not the purview of AfD, so I say delete, because a merge to me is "delete but save the information". I have no objection to merging if someone wants to put the information in another article. -Amarkov moo! 22:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep notability of secondary highways justifies retention of this referenced and sourced article. Alansohn 23:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Close Alright, we're not going anywhere here with the naysayers, we have a strong presence of Keep (myself included, see above), and we have over 75% in favor of keeping after 4 days, so I move this is finally closed, as the consensus has obviously spoken. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 00:52, 11 February 2007 (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.