Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was kept by Dabomb87 22:51, 9 February 2010.

List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan
I am nominating this for featured list removal because project consensus says to merge this style of list into the county article, even though the previous FLRC sustained the existence of this list. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist and merge to main county article. ---Dough4872 12:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment — the core information (table and other key prose) has been merged to Marquette County, Michigan already, and it has also been nominated at AfD now that the merger has been completed. Imzadi1979 (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

*Provisional delete, pending the success of this AfD. WFCforLife (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I stated that my opinion was bound to the AfD. I'm very suprised that the AfD turned out that way. But if the community has decided that it is unbalancing to merge this with the county article, then it cannot be considered to fail 3b. In other respects, it is FL quality. I also want to commend Imzadi for the steps taken here. It took guts, and while the situation is still messy, it will eventually provide a lot of clarity. Nice work! WFCforLife (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: we're just here to delist, not to advocate the deletion of any particular list or the merging of one article with another. Obviously if a list is actually deleted (or turned into a redirect), it'll be demoted....  This applies to all of these highways FLRCs...  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:USRD can say all it wants, but it can't force its opinion on that of another project, or substitute it for the larger community's opinion. The consensus from the previous FLRC that ended in June is that this article did not fail criterion 3b. The criteria have not changed in the interim, so delisting this article is not appropriate on that basis.
 * OK, so the AfD was closed as a keep. What's next? Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As TRM said, this FLRC determines only one thing: whether or not the list meets the FL criteria. Whatever happens after that is independent of this FLRC. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As a list, this is well-written, but in reality, the list should not exist. I would suggest this FL gets delisted and merged into the Marquette County, Michigan article. ---Dough4872 20:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see the first FLRC on this article, where it was determined not to do that very thing. The AfD has reached the consensus that allows it to continue to exist, without any consensus on merging or redirecting it. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see the criteria and explain why this list may fail one or more of them. AFDs, merge discussions etc are irrelevant to FLRC.  If it meets the criteria, it remains featured.  If it doesn't, and nothing is done to improve it, it gets demoted.  Simples.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It fails criteria 3b, as it is a content fork from the Marquette County, Michigan article. ---Dough4872 21:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Content forks are absolutely fine. If it fails 3b because merging it back into the main article is a problem, then that's a different issue.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Per consensus at USRD, lists of state highways for each county are not to exist as the information can be presented in the county article. That is the case here. From this viewpoint, the list is considered a content fork, and the criteria says that a FL "is not a content fork, does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." This list is a content fork and the information can resonably be included in the Marquette County, Michigan article. ---Dough4872 21:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The previous FLRC also featured the issue of how complete the list is, but with the potential for over 1,000 county-maintained roads, it was felt that this list met the criteria for status as an FL without including them. Once again, nothing has changed in the interim, so

As a side note, I opened this discussion and the AfD as a result of one project's attempt to forge a consensus on an issue that effected more than just that project. The AfD discussion resulted in a consensus to keep. It did not result in a consensus to merge or not merge content. During the course of the AfD, I merged in content from the list, but content was discarded in the merger. To merge all of the content of this list into the parent article would unbalance it, so a merger is not an acceptable compromise. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Just so everyone is on the same page, this was the closing admin's rationale (italics mine for emphasis): "The result was keep. There is clearly no consensus for outright deletion. Redirecting or merging is a definite possibility, but that should be worked out on the talk page." Dabomb87 (talk) 02:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Check the toolbox; there is a dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Imzadi1979, I think this meets all the criteria. I don't think this fails 3b as I think to merge this into the county article would disbalance that article - rst20xx (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.