Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of State Highways in Kentucky (1001-2000)

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 Overwhelming consensus to keep. Maxim_(talk) 01:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of State Highways in Kentucky (1001-2000)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log

)

Disputed prod. Simply a list of red-linked images and pages with very little context, fairly unlikely that any of these images or pages are going to be created. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is simply a state highway list split because of size. It is highly likely that the pages will be created-
  WP:KYSH. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, index list of state highways. The U.S. roads project has a lot on its plate on the moment (and nobody specializing in Kentucky), hence the large amount of red links. —Scott5114↗ 23:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. There is simply no way to provide a complete list of routes in Kentucky without splitting it by the thousand. Otherwise, we end up with a massive page that leaves dial-up (and possibly even high-speed) users struggling to view and edit the page. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point is, there isn't anything to show - yes, I know it's a list, but the articles should be created first before the lists are created. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. The U.S. Roads project doesn't have anyone specializing in Kentucky yet, so a lot of these might take a while. This is the best way to sort them -- and even if there's not enough info to create an article on each highway, info on the individual highways can be added to the list itself. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The point of the list is to show what articles need to be created. Saying they should all be created first is ridiculous and misunderstands how projects go about tackling huge subjects. Nick mallory 00:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Articles already exist and are being created, and its unclear just how the nominator "knows" that it is "fairly unlikely" that these articles and images will be created. Based on my highway article experience, a list of this type is the ideal recordkeeping location for what does and does not exist and a catalyst for creation of the missing articles. Alansohn 03:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Does Kentucky really have highway numbers going into the thousands? Are they all signed with those route numbers? Does a higher route number imply that the road is part of a secondary road system? I haven't checked on the answer to this question, but personally I'm hesitant to keep articles about secondary road systems, like county roads. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, they're (mostly) signed state highways posted into the thousands. Not sure about it being part of a secondary system.—Scott5114↗ 04:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are not part of a secondary system in the same manner that other states have, such as Tennessee. They are full-fledged state highways. But as a practical matter, four-digit roads are less important than one-, two- and three-digit roads. Realkyhick 19:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My eyes! Unfortunately, it appears that consensus dictates that all of these highways are notable, and deserve their own article. This is, of course, utter nonsense. They are not notable. Consensus is also that lists are valid as a repository for redlinks, so that we know what articles need to be created. (Does that mean we can delete them when they're all blue links??) Thus, the list guidelines permits this. This is also nonsense. Delete. i ^said 04:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you promote deletion of all 9,000 U.S. Road articles? --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a whole, yes. Yes yes yes. I assume there are some notable ones, but I haven't come across any. i ^said 05:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you aware that this includes about 15 GA class articles and 3 class FA articles? Do you consider
        WT:HWY? --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • I did say some were notable. The amout of WikiProjects does not make something worthwhile, it just means there is a large amount of editors who love roads, and will defend to the death the right of these articles to exist. I do not see, at a cursory glance at the precedents page, any attempt to remove large amounts of articles. And as for WT:HWY, I see a sparsely populated talk page with nothing at all that convinces me that virtually every single road in existance deserves its own article. i ^said 05:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Worthless WikiProjects would get sent to MFD.
            WT:HWY apparently it got archived... I mean Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways/Archive 1, section 11. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • I didn't say the WikiProjects were worthless. And I agree strongly with the "non useful" comment. I'm very surprised that was removed. And those arguments do not convince me in the slightest. i ^said 06:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • OK guys, you have each stated an opinion, and it doesnt seem to be going anywhere, please try to stay on topic, this article has nothing to do with the other 9,000 roads in question. thanks. !paradigm! 19:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)!paradigm![reply]
                • Whether you believe that roads should be included in Wikipedia does not matter at this point, what matters is whether they are considered to be notable for Wikipedia. If you wish to change this (as apparently the user directly above me does), the discussion needs to go elsewhere. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Not really. AfDs don't only deal with notability. And why does the discuss on whether or not this is notable need to go elswhere? In fact, I was under the impression that this is the exact place for it to go. i ^said 22:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Indent reset) What Nyttend said. I couldn't have said it better. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per the fact that this is full of pointless non notable random roads that really dont need to be famious for the reason that they are in kentucky and nothing else, this, a wiki page does not make. !paradigm! 18:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep because, despite the previous two comments, these are notable, "pointful" roads as determined by standing consensus. I'm not accusing the nominator of trying to make a point, but the last two votes are definitely attempts to change our notability standards, especially the one that says "of course these are notable according to consensus, but they aren't notable anyway." Wikipedia is run by consensus. I can't imagine how any informed attempt to delete articles that are obviously notable according to our notability standards can be in line without our community standards. Nyttend 22:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How are they notable? Has each road individually been

reliable sources? i ^said 00:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

No, but they are each capable of being covered by reliable sources. (Just like the rest of Wikipedia- roads are not finished yet. ) --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable does not equal notable. i ^said 04:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are notable because they are important to the region as modes of transportation. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, we don't demand that every single holder of statewide or provincewide political office have multiple reliable sources to be considered notable. Nyttend 14:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rschen— Important also does not equal notable. Nyttend—

Just because others do it does not mean these don't have to. i ^said 00:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Apparently, several other people disagree with you. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

←Obviously. I'm just stating my interpretation of the guideline. As always, it comes down to inclusionism ideals vs deletionist. i ^said 00:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. However, I'm arguing based upon the specific policy of Wikipedia:Notability (people), which speaks of the essentially inherent notability of "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures." In short, my argument is that your interpretation is different from a major example of consensus-made policy. Nyttend 18:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - State highways are notable and this list shows which topics need articles. Wikipedia is a never ending project and it takes time for every notable topic to have an article. --Oakshade 23:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This list is available to sort out articles and potential articles. If a notability problem's an issue - couldn't one just remove the links? master son^{T - C} 03:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could. However, that would result in an empty list. I would be reverted, we would discuss on the talk page, it would go nowhere, we would AfD/RfC/RfM, and in all probability (barring sensible notability interpretation or guideline change) we would end up here again. i ^said 04:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The problem with Kentucky is that they just assign the next available number to each road, so KY 2764 might be a one-lane old alignment of KY 4 or it might be an eight-lane freeway. Louisiana seems to be the only other state that does this. The old alignments don't need separate articles; the freeways do. Keep, and possibly clean up; I'd be willing to help clean it up. --NE2 12:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - if you want the images created, all you had to do was ask:
  WP:USRD/S/R. --Holderca1 13:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep While it may be a red-link farm to some, this list and all articles, red-link or not, are notable because they are vital parts of the state's transportation infrastructure.
  Wikipedia is inconsistent, and that means red-link farms are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes we say delete because they aren't useful, but for this case, they are in fact useful. It takes time to complete/improve a topic as huge as this one, and deletion should not be a way to stall that process. The reason why the list is in its current format is because of bandwidth issues for dial-up and possibly broadband users as well. —O (说 • 喝) 17:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep this list is important, red links or not. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 01:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Notable by established precedent; only different from other states' lists in that it is split into parts due to size. Realkyhick 19:58, 15 September 2007 (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.