Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A14(M) motorway

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 delete. Cirt (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A14(M) motorway

)

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

Article is mostly nonsense not backed up by the sources given. It is true that the A14(M) is an unsigned motorway, however it is actually a short section a mile long, commonly considered to be part of the A1(M). It is only referred to on paper.

I attempted to redirect this to the A14 article but the user has just undone the action. The section about the planned upgrade is true, but given that it was only on the cards for 3 years and never really got far in the planning process, certainly doesn't give it notability. Jeni ^(talk) 18:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have backed up my point --Rstallard2 (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Backed up what point? The fact you have created an inaccurate page, and once all the rubbish is stripped out you are left with something which just isn't remotely notable. Jeni ^(talk) 19:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is not inaccurate as all 3 references suggest. You may think this is rubbish but i have added references that prove that the A14 is OFFICIALLY part of the A14(M). That is why we should Keep and add information as it comes --Rstallard2 (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nope, all I'm seeing is you still misrepresenting sources. Please do tell me which one "proves" that the A14 is the A14(M)? Jeni ^(talk) 19:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, but where have you backed up your point? Where are your official sources? Personally I have no knowledge of this designation and the road is not built to motorway standards. Where are your references from Hansard? By coincidence I have found official reference in the 1960s to a potential M45 running west from Ipswich - I guess it was intended to link to the M45 in Warwickshire but, with respect, that is another story and does not give credibility to this article. PeterEastern (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added my prove as no 2 official documentation shows a road beween a1 and bar hill called a14(M)--Rstallard2 (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No you haven't. You have added proof that there was once a road planned called the A14(M), which we aren't questioning. Jeni ^(talk) 20:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have found this official reference to the road being called the A604(M) so there is certainly some real history here.[1]
Was called a604(M) because the a14 was once the a604. But was renamed to A14(M) When the A604 Became the A14 A14(M) Documentation--Rstallard2 (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, here is a reference from the highways agency to the A604(M) as well.[2]. We hear what you are saying Rstallard2, but these references are about past plans, there was also a plan for an M12, but that doesn't mean I insist that part of the current A12 is a motorway - a motorway is a legal classificiation and I have no evidence that the A14 has that designation today - do you? If you started your article, "The A14(M) was a proposed name for a section of the current A14" then that would be more sensible. PeterEastern (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At best all it warrants is a well formed mention in the A14 article, its obviously a plan that didn't get too far off the ground. Jeni ^(talk) 20:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability. I do not recall a precedent of all "secret unsigned motorways" having some inherent notability. Edison (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A bit of OR from me: I am a not infrequent user of the A14 over many sections, but in particular the London end and the M6 to M11 area. The section in question here is definitely not built to motorway standard, and while there might have been (and probably were - I'm not casting doubts on Rstallard2's research) it never has been one, and would take considerable work to be of motorway standard. I think the relevant info should be in the A14 article (and also that the **** road should have been built as a motorway as well, but that's PoV...). BTW, if the info on Rstallard2's page is correct, I would congratulate him/her on her/his achievements (spelling...) both here and outside. Peridon (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We seem to be getting off track a bit, above. The question is not if the subject existed (as a road or a proposal, or whatever), but whether the subject is notable under our policies. In this case, I agree with Jeni - a well-constructed reference in the A14 article would be sufficient. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have now researched the available reliable evidence and sumarised it on the A14 talk page here. There is clearly evidence that a 1.2 mile section of the A14 has had and does have many amusingly contradictory designations but there is no evidence whatsoever that there is any current 'secret' motorway of any greater length. I stick with my earlier vote of Delete and will roll the content from the talk page into the A14 article in due course. PeterEastern (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --John (talk) 07:23, 8 February 2010 (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.