Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I-20/59

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. Daniel (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I-20/59

I-20/59 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This only disambiguates to two articles, and it has a very low page views, averaging less than five views per day for the past year. Imzadi 1979 → 17:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Pageviews and number of entries (if > 1) are irrelevant, but this doesn't make sense as a disambiguation page. I-20/59 does not refer to either the I-20 or the I-59 highway, it refers to an apparently long section that's shared by both (i.e. a concurrency). On at least two occasions in the past editors have created articles on the topic (here's the latest one), and an article certainly makes more sense than a dab page. – Uanfala (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep for now and revert back to the prior version before the edits made by @
  Talkback) 18:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete or convert to disambiguation as a neologism. --Rschen7754 03:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to one or the other road, or perhaps to Interstate 20 in Alabama or similar, with a note added there to explain the shared section and a link to the other one. PamD 08:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect.✨️
  @Contribute 12:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Not all highway concurrencies have the type of sourced notability that, say,
  forks of the individual articles. A disambiguation page sets a bad precedent, in that we don't need such pages for potentially every concurrency, and there is no single redirect target, in that I see no rationale to pick one route over the other, even if I-20 is considered a "major" Interstate. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• comment I have brought this back to a minimal version of what it said before the IMO wrong-headed disambiguation version. I have no opinion as to notability, but kept or not the article should be reasonable. Mangoe (talk) 03:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Kinu. –Fredddie™ 04:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment—as shown now, the "article" fails
  WP:GNG as a topic distinct from the two overlapping Interstates, and this version of the "article" should definitely be deleted. Based on page views, it's an unlikely search topic to warrant the disambiguation page. Imzadi 1979 → 07:54, 24 June 2021 (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.