Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstate 11

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. certainly no real consensus to delete although there maybe an argument for a merge. That doesn't require AFD to rule, you can use the article talk page to do that.

Interstate 11

Interstate 11 (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 fails the google test. All hits are speculative articles of what _could_ happen in the future. Interstate 11 does not appear in any U.S. Department of Transportation or state department of transportation logs.

• Delete without prejudice per above.
  WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge relevant portions to U.S. Route 93 in Arizona. There seems to be a bit of notable speculation, but nowhere near enough for a separate article. --NE2 07:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as this appears to be an idea that is being seriously considered. [1] has another source. It may not happen for 20 to 40 years, but it is at least being talked about by the folks in charge, not just roadgeeks. Failing that, merge without prejudice to
  Future Interstate Highways and split out again should more concrete plans materialize. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Scott5114. ----DanTD (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice towards recreation if they ever do start building it. Highway numbers are volatile and there's no reason to have an article on a road which, if it is built, may not even have this number. Mangoe (talk) 14:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I would also support the redirect/merge to
  Future Interstate Highways suggestion made by others. Mangoe (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Redirect and merge to
  Future Interstate Highways. For now, it appears I-11 is just in the informal planning stages and nothing official has been produced yet. Once the plans for I-11 become official (if they do), then the I-11 article may be split out again. ---Dough4872 14:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep There are sufficient sources from Las Vegas and Phoenix that mention this proposal. Angryapathy (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a proposal to upgrade an existing road - US 93 - so it should probably be covered there for now. --NE2 20:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Perfectly good article about a road. 17:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

• Well, no it isn't, because there is NO road yet. Mangoe (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like we should delete the 2012 Olympics article, since it hasn't happened yet. Angryapathy (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it is more or less certain that there will be Olympic games in 2012 and that they will be called the "Olympic games". Neither construction nor name is certain in this case. If they were actually building the road, I'd probably be OK with an article; but at this point it's just proposed improvements to US 93 that might result in it be redesignated as an interstate.

• Keep, it's perfectly valid.
  Future Interstate Highways. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 03:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Note where
    Interstate 74 in West Virginia redirect... --NE2 05:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep. Ample precedent for articles of this kind. Proposal is of great regional significance. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per NE2. It doesn't appear that anyone outside of the media or project backers is referring to this proposed highway as I-11. If the state transportation agencies, FHWA, and AASHTO, the agencies that assign and post the route numbers, don't refer to it, we shouldn't be either. Without official backing, the designation is nothing more than something the media and project backers made up. – TMF 04:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable proposed highway. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• After further consideration I'm going with the Merge to U.S. Route 93 in Arizona, as this seems to be the way this situation has been handled in similar cases. Mangoe (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into
  Synchronism (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and do not merge. This road is going to happen, the question is when. Just like I-215 will be extended, the only issue is when. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will the US 93 corridor become a freeway? Very possibly. Will it be I-11? Maybe. We already have an article about the corridor, and don't need another that will simply duplicate it while the name is just talk. --NE2 03:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Even roads never built can be notable.--Milowent (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article for the road being discussed already exists and has inherent notability because it is an officially numbered route. A future I-11 may follow a completely different route to different destinations in a different part of the country than what is being speculated by the Las Vegas Sun. The preference of the general notability guideline for the topic "I-11 as a future highway between Phoenix and Las Vegas" cannot even be be met because there is a lack of multiple reliable sources.

Synchronism (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

How about [2] (an Associated Press article about I-11) and [3], an article about I-11 from the Phoenix side of things. Looks like multiple to me. Angryapathy (talk) 14:26, 3 December 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.