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 keep per WP:SNOW. As many participants have pointed out, individual state highway articles have generally been considered worthy of inclusion in prior consensus. This specific road is a more notable one at that, and there are sources which discuss the topic. The point is, however, an individual AfD is not the place to discuss road notability as a whole – instead, it should be taken at a more global level. JamieS93 ^{be kind to newcomers} 20:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut Route 140 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable Colonel Warden (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:USRD/NT as that defines what is notability for rorads, and compared to some articles, this isn't non-notable.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 19:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USRD/NT has no standing as guideline or policy and is contrary to WP:NRVE, "it is not enough to simply assert that a topic is notable without substantiating that claim.". Colonel Warden (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most road articles haven't been fully expanded, but there are fully verifiable sources. :| - Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 22:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, USRT/NT says essentially the same thing, they are not contradictory. Both say that each article must stand on its own merits. Dave (talk) 07:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you please explain why you believe it's non-notable? It is a state highway—which are almost always considered notable—and a quite significant one at that. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I looked for independent sources which specifically discuss the topic and there didn't seem to be any. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a road atlas. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• [1] Not that this would be the best article for encyclopedic information, but it is a RS and an independent source found in <5 minutes. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That is an announcement of routine road maintenance. Per WP:NOTNEWS, "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements ... are not sufficient basis for an article.". Colonel Warden (talk) 07:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Now that I looked at it more closely... a realignment of a road is not routine. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I beg to differ - the source supplied seems insufficient to establish notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - CT 140 is 22 miles in length and connects major towns. Other state highways can be much shorter and be in the middle of nowhere, e.g. Washington State Route 170, but still can be notable. –CG 23:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep citing the several dozen failed AFD's of this sort at WP:USRD/P and per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, and per our notability guideline (which *is* valid as demonstrated by consensus). Also see User:Scott5114/Highway notability FAQ for the rationale behind the notability of highways. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While the article may lack WP:RS at the moment, this article can be saved from the chopping block. And I happen to agree with Juliancolton and CG on this issue. And if a road less than 1/4 mile can be notable (Utah State Route 103) then this article sure can be too. Admrboltz (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant radial from an important city to surroundings Fg2 (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — I'd be willing to assume this falls under WP:SNOW. Based on all of the precedents, there's no reason to delete an article that can be fixed up. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – If someone wants to try to save this article, here's a quick google search of sources that could be used to show notability: [2] [3][4] Dave (talk) 07:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What is your position on the notability of road articles in general? --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• We're discussing weather the road is notable enough to justify an article, not weather the article has content that is not keeping with wikipedia's goals and policies. As such news articles and travel guides are a start to show notability.Dave (talk) 07:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm trying to determine if he is opposed to all road articles or to just this one in particular. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have a general position. Notability considers each case on its merits, depending upon the quality of the sources available. Roads seem similar to bacteria, fungi, genes, asteroids, people and the like - items which can be catalogued by the million. This is contrary to our policy that Wikipedia is not a directory or collection of indiscriminate information. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, you do not support the deletion of all (or the vast majority of) road articles? I want to make sure I understand your position before I go making arguments that don't even apply. (And we have had several users try to get all road articles deleted in the past). --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are here to discuss this particular article (which I found by patrolling random articles). Arguments based upon other road articles are to be avoided per WP:WAX. As for general principles, we should not be trying to reproduce mapping information as our text article format is not suitable for this. People will generally prefer to consult sources such as Google Maps for navigation and routing information as they are more accurate and better constructed for the purpose with zoom, scroll and other appropriate interface options. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the point of a route description is to provide other information that is not evident from the map; i.e. scenery, road features such as number of lanes, interchange details. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Not entirely sure why this was nominated in the first place? Jeni ^(talk) 13:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If the notability of roads in general is to be questioned, nominating one random article is not the right way forward; this needs to be discussed at a meta-level. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am neutral, but think that there should be a decision on deleting or merging individual roads before deleting this article. Dogposter 15:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see WP:ALLORNOTHING. Most topics form a spectrum in which there are notable cases and then a tail of non-notable cases. Roads seem to be much the same and I have seen numerous road articles brought to AFD with varying results. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Keep Colonel Warden first put this up for deletion by PROD, and I removed the prod with this edit summary: "rm PROD for now. I have no position on merits, but Polaron, the original and prncipal author, is off-wiki recently. Request wait until he is back on." Polaron is a regular editor, and I think he is probably off on a trip for a week or two. I don't see what is the urgency for this now to be AfD'd, why my request could not be honored. Put me down for Keep vote. doncram (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not a vote and particular editors do not own articles so there is no concept of a proxy vote. If you have no position on the merits of this article then your opinion is not helpful to the discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think you are the one to say when opinions about your behavior in wikipedia are helpful or not. I happen to think it is often helpful to point out when someone is behaving in ways that tend to cut off productive discussion, as when you put forward an AFD deliberately in the temporary absence of a person who could probably edit the article to address the specific concerns you have. That seems pointless to me, and unproductive on the merits of developing the wikipedia. Also, it is not for you to judge whether others' choice to mix various factors in their views is right or not. Anyhow, at first I stated i did not have an opinion, now I do. My position on the merits of the article: Keep. doncram (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• How does this !vote differ from your earlier one? Your comments all seem ad hominem rather than addressing the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It differs from my earlier vote in which i did not take a position is that in my last post, I said, clearly, "My position on the merits of the article: Keep. I don't really care to spell out the merits in more detail for u: your nomination to delete this article is clearly failing. doncram (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You still seem to think this is a vote. Please see WP:DGFA, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." Colonel Warden (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per User:Juliancolton and the rest. Although most of it is trivial mentions, a search on Google News provides some reliable sources. Theleftorium 21:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Your search is a good one - thank you for engaging with the topic. I have been through a couple of hundred of the hits but haven't noticed any which pass our policies, WP:NOTDIR or WP:NOTNEWS, as they all seem to be either addresses (usually the Trolley Museum) or routine news - traffic accidents, road closures, etc. Have you seen a case where the road is discussed in a more significant way? Colonel Warden (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - state highways are notable per WP:USRD/NT. Dough4872 (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, WP:USRD/NT is not policy and topics are not notable just because some editor asserts that they are. Where is the evidence of notability? Colonel Warden (talk) 06:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The road is several miles long and links multiple towns. If this road was a short connector, it may be better suited to a list but in this case, it is not. Many roads of similar length and importance have individual articles. This article just needs improvements and it can potentially become a GA someday. Dough4872 (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison, I looked up a similar GA and found Connecticut Route 190. That seems to have some significant history as a turnpike but its GA status is in doubt - see the talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that GA thing was a failed effort by it :| - Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 21:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was an internal audit by a USRD editor (myself). This article never went to GAR, so its status as GA was never truly in doubt. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Time to close as WP:SNOW? Jeni ^(talk) 15:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep There are many sources about this obviously notable topic. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As explained above, there don't seem to be any sources which pass WP:NOTDIR or WP:NOTNEWS. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take into consideration that the article hasn't been expanded. And here look: "Begin demolition of old bridge." Hartford Courant, Apr. 6, 1924.

Sources off the top

1. "Begin demolition of old bridge." Hartford Courant, Apr. 6, 1924.
2. Connecticut State Highway Department. Routes and Road Numbers on the State Highway System, Showing Control Numbers and Sections. Dated Jan. 1, 1942.
3. "State To Change Numbered Routes." Hartford Courant, June 14, 1961.
4. Connecticut State Highway Department. "A Report to the Highway Users of Connecticut: 1960-1961."
5. "155 Miles of Superhighways Projected." Hartford Times, June 1, 1967.
6. "U.S. Aid Sought To Fix Rts. 83, 140." Hartford Courant, Mar. 13, 1977.

These are several.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 22:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does the old bridge item help us as that seems to be an article about the bridge, not the highway? The Highway Department sources are not independent as they are paid to make a show of looking after this road and so their reports do not establish third-party notability. The other Hartford Courant items seem to be routine local news. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have really no idea what your saying do you? :| - These come from here. Read this up :| - Also you are saying the opposite of what is truth on CDOT - as CDOT would be a primary first-party source, sad to say. The Hartford Courant is one the biggest newspapers in the entire state of connecticut. More sources: Ready, here's 1, 2, 3 (note is abstract, Google News abstract mentions 140), 4 (same situation as #3), 5 (same situation), 6, and so on. You get my point.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 23:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The website to which you refer, www.kurumi.com, describes itself as the work of "roadgeeks". Such self-published, hobbyist works are not usually considered acceptable evidence of notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No duh. I am one I should know that. You also should get the point that there are sourced articles and reliable ones out there, because above I've just listed 12 newspapers and ConnDOT items.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 10:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I'd consider a slab of asphalt that cuts through three counties pretty notable. Maybe not to someone who lives in say, Oregon, but it's still a state highway in Connecticut. If one uses this AFD as a precedent, one could probably nominate a large number of state highway articles on Wikipedia for deletion. And that's not exactly a precedent that I'd like to be set. Wikipedia may not be purposed as a travel guide per-say, but there's a lot of miscellaneous knowledge compacted in it, a lot of which probably classifies as being "non-notable" to someone, somewhere. Does that mean it all should be purged? I wouldn't think so, as long as the articles are well written and have sources to back them up and which are credible. Kumba42 (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment towards Colonel Warden Your constant badgering of people who make !votes is now becoming disruptive, and I strongly suggest you stop. Its blatantly obvious you know nothing about this topic, and anyone can tell that this doesn't have a chance of closing as anything other than keep. Move on to your next project. Jeni ^(talk) 23:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a discussion not a vote. As editors like yourself seem unaware of this, it seems necessary to point out the weakness of your arguments. Your keep rationale is quite inadequate as it does not address the particulars and merits of the article nor our policies. The closing admin is likely to disregard such empty votes completely and so you may wish to add to your observations. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point. You're going after almost everyone who posts something you don't like. And these keeps aren't going to be ignored as most have value to the situation.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 10:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is normal in a discussion or debate to respond to the points made by the opposing side. Your response in particular has been illuminating as it seems that you are a road hobbyist who sees Wikipedia as a suitable vehicle for your enthusiasm. My impression is that many of the respondents here are like minded and so naturally find deletion of an article about a road to be unacceptable. But is this consistent with our general policies? The matter seems worthy of proper discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is not normal is the level of harassment within the AfD you are partaking in. A large chunk of the people voting here certainly do not fall within the "roadgeek" clique, your argument is flawed. If you continue to post in such a disruptive manner, I shall take this matter further. Jeni ^(talk) 11:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As notable as most other state highways; having decided to cover them, we should cover them all above a certain level. I don't always agree with the level individual wikiprojects set, and I think the general community has the right to decide whether or not to accept them--but in this case I think they've set it right, and they do have general acceptance. DGG ( talk ) 08:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem to be begging the question. Where has it been decided that we must cover each and every highway, regardless of sourcing? Do we have a policy or guideline which says this? You do realise that there must at least 100,000 roads of this sort worldwide? By creating lots of stubby articles from large geographic databases we are able to boast of having 3 million articles now but is this really what we are supposed to be creating? Our policy WP:NOT says otherwise. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think its pretty clear what the communities opinion is from this AfD! Jeni ^(talk) 11:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per extension of List of State Routes in Connecticut and per what everyone else has said. It meets the project's notability requirements. –túrian^patois 17:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.