Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florida State Road 300

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 20:32, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Florida State Road 300

I'm unsure if this should be deleted or expanded. What is the Wiki policy on roads? Is this particular road notable in any way? (I'm new to Wiki, please excuse me.) Fang Aili 01:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for merge to St. George Island. I believe the prevailing opinion is to keep national roads per se, and others according to significance. This isn't significant but we might as well merge it. Gazpacho 01:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Interstate, U.S. and state numbered highways.
FCYTravis 02:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
You noticed, I hope, that it is four miles long. Gazpacho
Certainly. But if every single one of the hundreds of thousands of schools in America is notable, I fail to see how any of the far-smaller number of state, U.S. and Interstate highways can be deemed non-notable. Deleting articles on state-designated and maintained highways which link communities together while keeping articles on elementary schools that are notable for "teaching things" makes no sense.
FCYTravis 02:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
- Just because there's a bunch of people who want all American roads and schools included doesn't mean they should be. Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Keep EdwinHJ | Talk 03:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wiki policy, as you can perhaps gather, is very contentious on the issue of articles about roads that just describe their geography. It seems to come in phases -- sometimes inclusion, sometimes deletion wins. Sdedeo 03:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is why we should keep them all, or we'll have a patchwork of some articles that have been kept and others about equally "notable" roads that have been deleted. --SPUI (talk) 08:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, what it means is that people who want to include individual pages for otherwise non-notable highways, as we do for schools, should try to hammer out a consensus among wikipedians before going ahead and creating thousands of articles. Sdedeo 20:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unexpandable; there's nothing encyclopedic to say on the topic.
T/C 04:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete; And for the love of God - let's reach some consensus on the matter as a whole | Celcius 04:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Road systems (networks) are encyclopedic. Individual roads are not. -maclean25 06:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all roadcruft. Especially this one, as it's a long bridge, and such bridges are certainly "notable". --SPUI (talk) 08:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes the thousands of people test. Klonimus 20:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. --GraemeL ^(talk) 10:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Brrrrrmmmmmm brrrrrrmmmm delete all roadcruft
t c 10:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - I suggest you all visit
FCYTravis 11:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
As much as I can appreciate this sentiment, it has nothing to do with the matter at hand. If someone spent 100 hours working on an article about his belly button lint, I would feel bad about the wasted effort, but that would not change the validity of the article. How much time and effort has been spent should have no bearing on an editor's decision WRT the encyclopedic nature of the subject.
T/C 16:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
They *are* encyclopedic, in the views of a goodly number of editors. This isn't like an article on some fan forum or a crufty screed on a Star Wars character who got 5 seconds of screen time. These are articles on important links in the transportation network of the United States, which are encyclopedic for being (relatively) permanent, publicly-constructed, widely used and verifiable. I would argue that these roads have far more impact on the nation at large than any Star Wars vs. Star Trek debate forum ever created, or any band which released two albums, sold five copies of each and then disappeared into the mists of time.
FCYTravis 16:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not arguing about whether or not they're encyclopedic in this case; all I'm trying to get at is that if an article is unencyclopedic, the fact that a large amount of work has been put into it should not merit its inclusion.
T/C 00:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

This is not the Overseas Highway serving the Florida Keys but a short stretch of road serving St. George Island, which is all but deserted in the winter. I'm afraid that it doesn't pass the bar. Delete, failing that, merge into the community that it serves. Pilatus 11:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as per SPUI's arguments. Roodog2k 13:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Does the road have a Florida state route marker on it? If so, keep. -- Grev -- Talk 16:02, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Keep This is verifiable and factual. Trollderella 16:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 17:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete tarmac, about as notable as sand. --TimPope 17:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- So you should vote to keep as Sand is notable. :-) Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 03:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Gateman1997 19:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Numbered state highways are a noted
precedent. Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 19:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per the minor-roads-don't-deserve-an-entry-they're just-asphalt argument. Dottore So 19:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor road. State highways usually are major enough to get a stripe down the middle, but not always. --Carnildo 21:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Once we get down into local street level, it's probably going to be nn in most cases, but precedent has been set above for state level roads, which I concur with. Karmafist 21:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, we now have to accept schools. This is not an excuse for accepting other pointless information. Wikipedia is not Everything2. Denni☯ 23:32, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
- You heard it here! Roads are the new schools. I remain utterly convinced by the suggestion that institutions that obtain state-level grants for their construction and maintenance can be described as "non-notable". When we remove neutral, verifiable information from Wikipedia, we degrade it in a small way. If we continue to do so, we end up degrading it in a large way. We have no noticeable namespace problems, we have no noticeable diskspace problems, so the only real reason for removing something from Wikipedia is the suggestion that the information could be damaging to the project. In what way does the information that there is a road leading out to St. George Island, designated Florida State Road 300, damage Wikipedia? Why is this information so toxic to Wikipedia that it must be removed? --Tony Sidaway^Talk
  - Data!=information. When irrelevant minutiæ are included the information content of Wikipedia is diluted. Pilatus 12:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because it keeps people from seeing the forest for the trees. It has an adverse effect on the use of categories, of lists, and of any search engine to find information. Gene Nygaard 12:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia keeps articles on area codes and zip codes, as well as articles on numbers (
    one, for example.)--Rschen7754
    16:32, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 23:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Karmafist. -- Kjkolb 06:24, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Gamaliel 07:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. R adiant _>|< 10:34, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. -
brenneman^(t)^(c) 12:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Not notable. Possibly make article on the bridge instead (note that it is not now in any bridges category, etc.), and link the numbered highway to that in
Florida State Roads; at least describing the bridge will give more interesting reading than describing a road. Gene Nygaard 12:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. This is a useful article and has encyclopedic value. --K1vsr (talk) 15:38, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. As there are articles on schools in US, articles on certain roads should be accepted too. *drew 22:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable. Sam Vimes 22:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a road atlas. Nandesuka 22:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although short, a state numbered road and in a whole category full of state numbered roads. HollyAm 01:54, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. May I point you to WPs on
Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Highways, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways? A state highway project for all 50 states is not feasible at this time... leave it be and it will be improved with a routebox and that sort of thing in the near future. There are also over 600 US road stubs alone. And not to mention the nearly 1,000 state highway/ interstate articles in the WPs mentioned alone. You can't just delete 1,000+ articles! They are informative- you can learn about the highway that you commute on to work or a highway that you will travel once on vacation. We keep county routes in CA which are less notable than these.--Rschen7754

Merge/Comment - Whereas I believe that state highways should be kept, please take a look at the article.
Hahnchen 14:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete all insignificant and non-notable roads. Quale 14:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Meaning you vote keep on this road, right? --SPUI (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Doesn't make sense to me to have articles on all the other Florida state roads, but not this one--keep as part of the overall project. 68.185.16.5 17:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC) {User:Niteowlneils not logged in, editing from an internet cafe in Roseburg, Oregon.}[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 an
undeletion request
). No further edits should be made to this page.