Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ventura Freeway


 * 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The result was Withdrawn by nom. This is something that needs to be discussed across the board; I don't think this is the place to do it though. --Rschen7754 06:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Ventura Freeway

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Topic adequately covered in U.S. Route 101 in California and California State Route 134. Rschen7754 23:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Convert to a set index page like Mackinac Trail. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's an official separate entity than U.S. Route 101 in California and it would be inaccurate to describe it entirely as US 101. In Los Angeles on traffic reports, this route is almost always termed the "Ventura Freeway", not US 101 or California 134.   While US 101 is generally a north-south route, Caltrans designated the Ventura County and part of the Los Angeles County sections as the "Ventura Freeway" because in those sections, it is an east-west route.  "US 101" regains its noth-south distinction as the "Hollywood Freeway" south of the Ventura Freeway-Hollywood Freeway interchange, where then US 101 continues south as the latter name.  West of that interchange, the Ventura Freeway continues with the designation as California 134 until it meets I-210 in Pasadena.  The reason for the Ventura Freeway officially being designated over 2 different numbered routes is to avoid confusion for motorists so this entire east-west route is always known as the "Ventura Freeway".  Additionally, the Ventura Freeway is distinguishly known in American culture in both music and literature. --Oakshade (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Per nom, information from this article is already covered in two other articles. This article can be converted to a set index page, retaining the name for search functionality. The set index page can further describe where the Ventura Freeway designation exists on the other two article pages, unlike a standard disambiguation page where the format only allows for a list of articles related to the name. Duplication across so many pages of otherwise identical information makes article maintenance more difficult. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But nowhere do we describe it entirely as US 101. Hence the set index page. --Rschen7754 00:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The freeway is notable in itself and is not synonymous with the two numbered highways that it contains. In news articles it is always referred to as the Ventura Freeway and only parenthetically as a numbered freeway; for example,, . Most locals could not even tell you which segments are the 101 and which are the 134; it's just the Ventura Freeway. It was originally (1947) created as the Ventura Parkway and was only given numbered designations later.. It is notable under this name and Wikipedia needs an article on it - just as most other named freeways in Los Angeles are known by their names rather than their numbers and have articles under their names. --MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Other stuff exists. There's no reason that a good set index page can't cover what needs to be covered about the Ventura Freeway name, and redirect readers to the other articles for more information, reducing the redundancy between articles. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Oakshade and MelanieN. It's got its own song, plus a set index is for items that "share the same (or similar) name", not the case here . Ah, you don't mean a set index, you mean a roaddis. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as disambiguation page between US 101 in CA and CA 134. ---Dough4872 02:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Just because the Ventura Freeway is co-signed with other numbered roads doesn't make it not independently significant.  US 101 is a quite lengthy road in California, and its not uncommon for significant named highways to have their own articles, see, e.g., Cross Bronx Expressway (NY highway, a portion of which is signed as U.S. 1), John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway (a portion of Interstate 95 in Maryland), and New Jersey Turnpike (a portion of which is signed as Interstate 95 in New Jersey).  Older highways which predate the interstate highway system, and thus are often in some of the largest metropolitan areas in the United States, are independently notable and should usually have an article covering them.--Milowent (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: I have to agree with the non-disambiguation keeps. The Ventura Freeway is notable in its own right.  If all of the Ventura were part of US 101 or CA 134, I would support merging there. --Fredddie™ 03:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: All limited access highways are notable. Dew Kane (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not what the debate is about. --Rschen7754 05:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article breaks topic hierarchy as advocated by WP:SUMMARY. Those voting Keep in this discussion do not appear to understand the way the U.S. highway articles on Wikipedia are structured and maintained. To illustrate, let's take the example of the Cross Bronx Expressway given by Milowent above.


 * The Cross Bronx Expressway article works because of the nature of how road articles are structured on Wikipedia: we start with a general overview, then scale down to progressively smaller snippets of road. So it goes I-95 → I-95 in New York → Cross Bronx Expressway. In this case, in the I-95 article, for the portion covered by articles of smaller scope (like I-95 (NY) and CBE) we provide a brief summary of the other article. If you need more information than that summary provides, you drill down to the next level.


 * The Ventura Freeway is a name given to a small section of two other routes. In this case, you have four articles involved: US 101, US 101 in CA, CA 134, and the Ventura article. Because the Ventura name applies to two different highways, we can't just say "See Ventura Freeway for more details" on their two pages; if someone is on the CA 134, then the article they're being linked to will also contain things that apply to US 101 and not CA 134. If someone is expressly looking for CA 134 information, this is likely to confuse. This is especially evident when you consider that we provide exit lists on each freeway article; the same list in the CA 134 article and the US 101 in CA article is going to have to be duplicated in the Ventura Freeway article. It is much simpler editorially to provide separate information on US 101 (CA) and CA 134, and if someone is looking for information on "Ventura Freeway" in particular, then they can be told via a dab page "This name refers to a segment of these two highways; what part of the Ventura Freeway do you want?"


 * Clarityfiend above noted that the Ventura Freeway is mentioned in a song. This is an argument for judging notability, yes, but notability is not what we're trying to judge here, and not the only metric which determines what gets an article. Were one to be arguing that the Ventura Freeway (or just its name) was not going to be covered on Wikipedia at all, this would be a good thing to point out. However, that's not what's being debated here; all of the Ventura Freeway will still be covered in Wikipedia, and the name will be noted in the other articles that are covering it. What's being debated here is just whether there will be a page which covers only the sections of the two roads that are called "Ventura Freeway"


 * In essence, this article hinders the editorial process on Wikipedia by creating an article with content that will substantially duplicate the others, causing the article maintainers to waste their time patrolling and updating two articles when one will do. It has no place in the hierarchy of articles that is standard in the U.S. road section of Wikipedia, and thus makes applying WP:SUMMARY difficult. It needs to go. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Question: What if I wanted information on the whole Ventura Freeway? By your logic, I have to go to two articles for this one road. --Fredddie™ 04:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And what about the New York State Thruway, its similar in that it is co-signed with a number of different routes, but has its own article as well.--Milowent (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Question: (to help me decide how to vote). I get that this article, if kept, will be redundant to California State Route 134. However, if fully developed, wouldn't the article for U.S. Route 101 in California be so big, that it should be split into sub-articles? Then, could this article focus on the US-101 part of the Ventura Freeway and be structured to be a sub-article of US-101 in California?Dave (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that there is inherent overlap of not one but two articles. If the article just overlaps a smaller section of just one article, that's okay, because we can use summary style to allow the reader to form a chain of articles in their mind, with a broad-subject article at the top, progressively drilling down to the bottom where you have the narrowest subject. I have this diagrammed out at User:Scott5114/Hierarchy. If the Ventura Freeway article were to become a sub-article of US-101, that would leave it out of the CA-134 hierarchy, and vice-versa. The only thing that US 101 and CA 134 have in common are this section of freeway. Having this article merges the two concepts' article chains. That makes navigation harder because it causes the reader to have to conflate these two concepts for the mental map in their head to reflect the way the articles are structured. And that's a factually incorrect mental model to have.


 * The New York State Thruway is not comparable because it is a route system. In addition to what most people call "the Thruway" (the mainline route), you also have I-86 (which crosses the mainline thruway at right angles) and the New England Thruway (a portion of I-95 that doesn't even connect to the mainline thruway) in the system. Also, this highway system is administered by a completely different agency (there is a Thruway Authority that handles only the Thruway system).


 * Look at this from another point of view—is there anything inherent about the Ventura Freeway that would not be covered in the CA 134 and US 101 articles? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is similar to the situation in Detroit between I-75 and I-375. I-75 comes north from Ohio on the Detroit–Toledo Freeway before it becomes the Fisher Freeway. The Fisher runs parallel to the Detroit River. The Chrysler Freeway started near the river and runs away from it. This section is I-375. Where the Fisher and the Chrysler meet, I-75 takes a right-angle turn to leave the Fisher and use the Chrysler to head out of Detroit. The Chrysler Freeway carries two different Interstate Highway designations, just like the Ventura Freeway carries two different highway designations. Chrysler Freeway actually redirects to the Interstate 75 in Michigan article, if only because I-375 is the shortest, signed Interstate Highway in the nation, and the fact that I-375 also runs on the Chrysler can be adequately summarized in both Interstate articles. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Chrysler Freeway redirects because you redirected it, Imzadi1979.--Milowent (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Because 2 years ago when I made those redirects, there was nothing in the article that couldn't be covered in the I-75 article, which is my point. Articles that are redundant to each other should be merged together, using redirects or variations on the disambiguation page scheme as necessary. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But just because you redirected that one doesn't mean there aren't many examples of named roads that are also co-signed with other roads and which retain their own articles, like Henry Hudson Parkway.--Milowent (talk) 05:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Another question: Can anyone answer if any part of CA 134 is not part of the Ventura Freeway? --Fredddie™ 04:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All of CA 134 is the Ventura Freeway.--Oakshade (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To build off of Dave's idea, we could merge CA 134 and the US 101 section into Ventura and summarize the US 101 section on US 101 in CA. --Fredddie™ 05:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be over 13 miles of off-topic content for the US 101 article.--Oakshade (talk) 05:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, no. Just the part about US 101 would be summarized. --Fredddie™ 05:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment If anyone has access to LA Times archive, I'd like to see this article and any other features done on the Ventura Freeway, for fleshing out a history section in the article.--Milowent (talk) 04:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment For a similar situation, see San Diego Freeway. --Rschen7754 05:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What about New York Avenue (Washington, D.C.). Another metropolitan thoroughfare, its U.S. 50 and U.S.1 Route 1 Alternate at different points. I am having trouble finding any consistency.--Milowent (talk) 05:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC) (ETA: e.g., Cherokee Turnpike, which is a segment of US-412 in Oklahoma)--Milowent (talk) 05:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * City streets articles focus on entirely different things - that's why they are covered by WP:USST and not WP:USRD.

--Rschen7754 05:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * New York Avenue is basically a highway for a good portion.--Milowent (talk) 05:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And your Cherokee Turnpike example isn't good here either, because Cherokee Turnpike only has one numbered designation. --Rschen7754 05:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So if a road overlaps with only one numbered highway, its ok to have its own article? Am trying to understand the conventions here.--Milowent (talk) 05:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. We have Interstate 5 and Interstate 5 in California, yet we don't have Interstate 76 (west) and Interstate 76 in Nebraska. There has to be enough information for a separate article. Not just a separate article, a separate article that is actually worth reading. --Rschen7754 06:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Question to those voting keep - As the article currently is, is there anything worth keeping that is not covered in U.S. Route 101 in California or California State Route 134? If you remove all of the duplicated information, do you have enough for a standalone article? Also, this debate is about redundancy, not notability. --Rschen7754 06:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Bleh. There's no way to handle this well. Disambiguation is a bad idea since you can't link to a disambiguation, but there are legitimate reasons to link to Ventura Freeway. But if it's not important enough for a separate article - which I'm not convinced it is (unlike Santa Ana Freeway and friends, it wasn't one of the early freeways with a lot of history; the history is really split between 101 and 134) - what are you going to do? It seems that there might be a need for disambiguation pages that can be linked to, and for which links to should not be fixed. These would be essentially permastubs, pointing to the separate designations for more information. --NE2 06:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Mackinac Trail isn't a pure disambiguation page anymore. It's actually been tagged now as a "set index", some new type of page I never heard about until I looked at the page earlier tonight. The gadget that color-codes the title of an article based on assessment classes calls it that. From what I read about them, these "set indices" would be a hybrid between a pure disambiguation page and a permastub, which is why I suggested it for this case. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:27, 29 March 2010 (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.