Wikipedia talk:Notability (highways)

Oppose
I'm going to have to oppose this for two reasons.

1)It's instruction creep.

2)Wiki is not paper. "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap." Why shouldn't we have an article for every road? Why aren't they all notable?  Cool Blue  talk to me 16:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Because apparently some people don't think they are; see the previous AFDs. I dunno about the instruction creep, but I'm with you here that most roads are notable. ( [ →] zel  zany  - new age roads) 16:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, most roads are not notable; most are minor residential streets. --NE2 19:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Allow me to clarify what I meant what "most roads" meant. I meant all state highways and their systems, U.S. Routes, Interstate Highways, freeways, expressways, and a few minor roads that have lots to say about, plus sources to back them up.  I in no way, shape, or form, intend to mean all of the city streets and minor roads. ( [ →] zel  zany  - new age roads) 19:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant in my definition of road, too.  Cool Blue  talk to me 22:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You might like to see Wikipedia talk:Notability_%28awards%29, under Kevin Murray's comment.  Cool Blue  talk to me 22:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (me looks) AFDs for roads happens fairly frequently, given that WP:USRD/P proves it. ( [ →] zel zany  - new age roads) 22:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But have you noticed that only one was deleted?  Cool Blue  talk to me 22:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (indent) Under the articles section, that is.  Cool Blue  talk to me 22:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The results of those debates don't matter. What does matter is the disagreement about road/highway notability between different editors.  That results in them being sent to AFD, and that's why this guideline is still being proposed and discussed to straighten that out. ( [ →] zel  zany  - new age roads) 22:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[Indent reset] I support having a guideline for highway notability. It would reduce the number of AfDs for roads, and would at the same time simplify that process. While most AfDs have resulted in Keep or Speedy Keep, I believe the point is to eliminate most future AfDs. As for the creeping issue, I don't see how it is. A good example is Pennsylvania. The commonwealth has the main state routes numbered 1 to 999. There are quadrant routes (QRs) which are all four digit numbers. Many state maintained bridges are given quadrant route numbers. A few of the QRs could be significant enough to have articles, perhaps because there's something significant on them (such as 3rd Street in Harrisburg, PA which has the state capital on it) or that a decommissioned route ran on the modern QR. I think that a guideline would eliminate future attempts at creating articles for minor QRs. I think that while WP:PASH could have its own guideline, I believe that a Wikipedia-wide guideline would better serve all of the road-related WikiProjects, creating a better organized and cohesive encyclopedia. --myselfalso 23:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's only about 1 per month, or more precisely 22/23. It's just instruction creep.  Cool Blue  talk to me 00:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed - this guideline is too prescriptive. In general, highways are notable as are major roads within cities, but ones that are not (eg distributor streets or those which fail WP:N / WP:RS) will go to PROD or AfD and get nuked. No need for a separate guideline on these. Orderinchaos 15:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate much further. Furthermore, if there were this many road articles nominated for deletion during the course of Wikipedia ever existing, then it means that a good chunk of the community do not think [state] highways are notable, while others say they are notable.  Instruction creep for this seems very misleading. ( [ →] vish  win60  - new age roads) 18:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Rejected
It looks like this has failed to reach a consensus and should be rejected. --Kevin Murray 10:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Clarity
Even though this is not a policy page, can there be clarity on what special historical significance means? Andy 1One (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

NZ added
I've added a section o New Zealand, based on general usage and previous outcome of AfD discussions. Please amend at will! :) Grutness...wha?  23:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)