Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anniston Eastern Bypass

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anniston Eastern Bypass

)

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

Expired PROD from 2008 (!) that was de-PRODded and not deleted. Concern then was "Unreferenced, non-notable transportation project" and that is still the case. –Fredddie ™ 23:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this article was undeleted by request at

WP:REFUND#Anniston_Eastern_Bypass. Nevertheless, the notability concerns still apply. –Fredddie ™ 00:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This appears to be an important road that is being built by the Alabama Department of Transportation as State Route 192; it is also receiving stimulus funding from the ARRA which shows importance. (see here on page 36). The article does need a lot of improvement though. Dough 48 72 02:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record the road is now known as the Veterans Memorial Parkway (see here). A Google search revealed several newspaper articles about the highway. Dough 48 72 03:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently only the final stretch of the road is Veterans Memorial Parkway? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ ~~Subject is likely notable per~~
~~WP:V. Also this article is so dated that as it stands it may no longer be factually accurate. It needs to be updated with reliable sources or it needs to go away.~~ I have added the page to my watch list. If appropriate improvements are made I will be happy to change my vote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Changing my !vote to reflect added sources. Article is still in serious need of updating though. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a major road project that's had a fair amount of news coverage (e.g. [1]). If in the future it becomes part of
US-431 it can be merged to that article. --NE2 10:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment—
WP:REFUNDed, which is fine. However, when an older article like this is REFUNDed, it should be brought up to date as expeditiously as possible. If it's not going to be updated, the article will still have the same issues regarding lack of sources and borderline notability (as written the article doesn't demonstrate the notability of the roadway, even if it is notable). I'm inclined to keep this, but the article needs to be updated and cleaned up yesterday. Imzadi 1979 → 21:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. While some updating is still needed, I've fully referenced the article: notability is established. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 16 April 2014 (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.