Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stone Mountain Lithonia Road


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Stone Mountain Lithonia Road

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article shows no notability as to why it should exist. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 11:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep A Google News search shows oodles of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not at all notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable. Coverage must be actual substantial coverage about a topic, and not mentions in lists or as part of regular news reporting. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is lots of coverage of the actual road including a major road widening project, the Olympic torch being carried on it, the major health facilities being constructed on it, train collisions, a marathon course using the road, Wade-Walker Park beign off it etc. etc. etc. This is a very notable road. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There are some articles on the widening project which might push this into notability. But even then, are we saying that road is notable if it's construction is covered? I'm not sure that it's enough. As for the others - that things are on it, or that a road is used, does not seem to make a road notable. I don't see how any of this is more than routine news reporting, which is not sufficient to warrant inclusion. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Notability is not inherited because the Olympic torch was carried on it. If this was a freeway, it would be notable; if it was a state or US-signed route, it would be notable. It's none of the above, and the only argument for it being notable seems to be based on either routine coverage or inherited notabiity. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:02, 10 October 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.