Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:M-54 and M-83 (Michigan highway)

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  delete. --BDD (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Draft:M-54 and M-83 (Michigan highway)


This was created during a now closed merger suggestion between M-54 (Michigan highway) and M-83 (Michigan highway). The merger discussion was closed as no consensus for merger as its mostly WP:OR.  Admr Boltz  17:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete—the concept of the merged article is useless and should never be moved back to the mainspace.  Imzadi 1979  →   18:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Yeah, no. We already decided against this. T  C  N7 JM  22:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I seriously think this is keep material since the "spur concurrency" of the route is a "short stub" compared to 2 longer segments that "funnel" into the concurrency to the "double terminus". This is why I even proposed this merger in the first place.  I still think we should (again), keep this article since a similar situation happens with Newfoundland and Labrador as a "double article", as well as Newfoundland; and Labrador as separate articles.  If Newfoundland and Labrador in Canada can be separate and merged like that, then why not a "longer highway with two designations with a stub spur of concurrency termini"? --Highway 231 (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're comparing apples and oranges. Newfoundland is an island and Labrador is a mainland region. Together they make up one province, just as the Upper Peninsula is one region, and the Lower Peninsula is another, and together they're Michigan. In each case, there are reliable sources that treat each of these items as separate concepts. I can come up with other geographic examples where entities overlap (Mackinac Island the landform, Mackinac Island the municipality that also covers Round Island, Mackinac Island State Park that covers most of the landform...), however there are no sources that treat the two state highways as a single unit as you propose.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see the answer to life, the universe, and everything - please show me significant coverage that verifies that this is indeed a "double feature" highway. This smells heavily of original research, which has no place in an encyclopedia. --  Admr Boltz  15:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:IMPROVE - someone could find sources to reference the content, or rewrite it to be verifiable and return it either as a stand-alone article or merged with the individual highways articles. No reason has been given why this content should be hidden for only administrators to see (in fact, no reason has been provided in this nomination at all!). The content has already been removed from the encyclopedia, as Draft space is not indexed, and there are no COPYVIO or BLP problems that would justify hidding it. We're supposed to have an open process and accountability of how we write articles - that can't happen if we just hide everything that we don't like. Diego (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Moreover, User:Highway 231 is a newcomer. Deleting the draft without a very good reason is bitey, and we don't bite newcomers. Diego (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * see M-54 (Michigan highway) and M-83 (Michigan highway), separate Good Articles about the separate highways, which although they share a 2 mi overlap, have pretty much separate histories for several decades.  Imzadi 1979  →   10:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So? That's unrelated to the subject of this discussion. You're actively requesting that the contents of the Draft:M-54 and M-83 (Michigan highway) page are hidden from view from anyone that has no administration privileges, while providing no reason why that would be a benefit to anyone. This is a wiki, we are expected to keep available our discarded content (at article's history, talk pages, etc) so that someone interested in the topic can review it at a later time and see if they can make it better. Diego (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that there's no real reason this article should ever exist. It's just a concurrency. It's not notable enough for its own article, and I'm sure it would get laughed at if it actually existed and was sent to AfD. T  C  N7 JM  14:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there anyone sugesting to create an article from this? This is not an article, it's a draft. The content can be reused in many ways other than moving them to an article with this exact title (for example, in one of those articles you've linked), and WP:PRESERVE is policy. Diego (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me counter your argument with an example. Let's say I want to create a draft about the cardboard box I have sitting in my closet. I think it's notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia because it can hold up to five large books! So I create Draft:Cardboard box in TCN7JM's closet and it gets sent to MfD. Am I allowed to !vote keep because we shouldn't be deleting drafts? If that was the case, the draft namespace would just become the article namespace for non-notable topics, which clearly isn't what it was meant to be. I treat drafts as if they're articles. If a draft is being created about a subject that clearly isn't notable in itself, it should be deleted, otherwise its contents just sit there forever as if it was an actual article; this would just make the draft namespace a loophole for avoiding the deletion processes on the site. T  C  N7 JM  21:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Does the content of your cardboard box article contain verifiable facts that could be added to a different article? Say, a compilation of external references to techniques for cardboard making, or a well-referenced narrative of cardboard styles in your country's history. If so, the current approved policy is to keep that valid content accessible, no matter how non-viable topic your closet may be. You seem to believe that hiding everything from view is what the deletion process is about, when the opposite is true. It's a long-standing and strong tenet that deletion is an assessment of the validity of a topic, not the quality of the content within the article. Diego (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And we are here to say that the topic is not valid. --Rschen7754 07:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not valid as its own article, anyway—the section of highway this draft is about is already covered by recognized content, so what good is the duplication? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - there really is no use for this. The argument of hiding content is odd, as well as the BITE argument - if that was the case, we should keep every non-notable article written by a newcomer. --Rschen7754 18:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a valid article subject, duplicates existing article coverage. If moved to mainspace, would just be taken to AFD for that reason anyway. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. We can't make up words to give something notability.  When I read the draft, the road's notability seems to be gleaned from the concept of a "concurrency spur", which is a neologism in addition to being wrong (it's not a spur).  I've been editing here for almost ten years and been reading roadgeek sites for much longer than that, and I've never seen that term used.  Ever. –Fredddie™ 15:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Somebody might think this is some red herring original research, but what if Wikipedia helps influence a better understanding of the circumstantial "spur effect" of a concurrency? Besides, maybe some changes will be made to that route someday that might result in a convoluted history report.  So lets just say that M-54 and M-83 might consolidate into one or the other if one of those two routes dominates with a deleted concurrency spur in the event of the "spur" going back to local control.  But lets not get too carried away seeing as Wikipedia policy states that "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball".  I still think we should keep the draft.  --Highway 231 (talk) 11:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Find me a reliable source for this "circumstantial 'spur effect' of a concurrency". As for the rest of your statement, your own words work against you. If MDOT ever consolidates the two highways, the appropriate modifications can and will be made to the articles at that time. We have a policy entitled "What Wikipedia is not", and in the section labeled Wikipedia is not a crystal ball it says: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." So until you have some documentation that MDOT is going to consolidate M-54 and M-83, there is no article topic to write about, per policy.  Imzadi 1979  →   16:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You realize that you've now voted twice, right? --Rschen7754 18:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've removed the redundant boldfacing so that subsequent comments won't be construed as double-voting if the closer only counts bolded statements.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:52, 3 February 2014 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.