Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State Route 40 (New South Wales) (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   delete. postdlf (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

State Route 40 (New South Wales)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No longer a current route, covered in other articles, permastub. Routes made up of mainly notable roadways should also be deleted (This route is covered by: Western Distributor, Victoria Road, Sydney (incl. Gladesville Bridge), James Ruse Drive, and Bells Line of Road (The only subroad(s) without articles are Windsor and Old Windsor Roads)) Nbound (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Evad37 (talk) 06:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. While it is made up of notable component roads, the route itself is not notable. - Evad37 (talk) 06:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Bells Line of Road, James Ruse Drive and Victoria Road, Sydney already includes State Route 40, and has a lot more information. It is also a convention not to have wiki articles named after route allocations. Marcnut1996 (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete for all of the reasons outlined above. It's also worth pointing out that Nbound, Evad37 and Marcnut1996 are all active members of WikiProject Australian Roads and I'm inclined to think that if deletion were not warranted, they would be among the first to say so. Solid consensus to delete from among members of a relevant WikiProject is always reassuring. Stalwart 111  11:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete the route itself does not have sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: It should be noted that being "no longer a current route" is not a reason to delete, and neither is being a "permastub". - The Bushranger One ping only 21:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I probably should have put the notability information first in my nom, but its too late now... This article really should have been deleted the first time round, when it was still a route, the consensus for Australian roads is that we dont cover most routes, especially when well covered elsewhere. (This is essentially the opposite rule to US roads notability guidelines which most editors would be more familiar with; but works better here, as roads are often known exclusively (or near exclusively) by name alone). The permastub comment referred to the lack of potential for expansion, not its expansion history alone. In other words the best this page could hope for would be to become a disambig, or overview page (by copying small amounts of existing information largely verbatim from existing articles). The not current route information is for those who dont reside in NSW/Sydney, or arent members of WP:AURD, and may not be aware of this roads actual status. (ie. its not as described in the article- The road is not a "major route" as self-described, its really a former minor route.) -- Nbound (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Covered enough by existing articles. p  b  p  04:23, 16 July 2013 (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.