Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of future or partially complete Interstates in North Carolina

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. Anyone willing to merge can request at

WP:REFUND for the content be restored under a redirect, without reference to me. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

List of future or partially complete Interstates in North Carolina

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

As a topic separate from

WP:GNG. The individual highways have their own separate articles that should discuss the projects in the works, and the main list should have notes and other content briefly summarizing it as well. That means this article, which appears to be a copy/paste without proper attribution from the individual articles, is not necessary and should be deleted. Imzadi 1979 → 00:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and North Carolina. Imzadi 1979 → 00:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above and because some of it borders on speculation. --Rs chen 7754 01:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, I really do mean delete, per
  Wikipedia:Content fork. --Rs chen 7754 02:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep After editing all the 100 counties in NC and keeping them up to date. I found the article "List of future Interstate Highways" lacked sufficient data on many Future Interstates in NC, which is why I made the this wiki page. This is a problem for counties with multiple future interstates (like Nash with three FI going through it). Adding multiple pages for each interstates to the "See also" section or any section on that county page would not be useful, especially as the part talking about said interstates is buried in some articles. To bring up an issue Rschen7754 brought up, most of the FIs in this state have been fully planned out by the NCDOT (except for I-685 which is quite a new official proposal). To also address to main issue of deletion by Imazadi1979, I added the information from those pages as a teaser to show give people to basic information attributed to the FI and the ability to learn more on the parent page. If I incorrectly quoted those pages, I apologize and will try my best to quote them correctly, I am planning to add more information about each FI in the future if this page is not deleted. Thank you for your time and I apologize again if I made any errors (I'm still quite new to Wikipedia and all it has to offer). DiscoA340 (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. –Fredddie ™ 03:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Content can be incorporated into the state list or the main Future list, but the blurbs are far too long. Sounder Bruce 06:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with SounderBruce. the main list of Future interstates is for much larger and longer term interstates. There are currently 13 FI residing in NC and only 2 of them are mentioned in that article. Adding the other 11 routes would basically make the article almost solely about North Carolina. The main purpose of "List of future or partially complete Interstates in North Carolina" is to make a better list for FI in NC as some information about each route is only a paragraph long and made without much context or more information about that route in some articles. I have made the removed the copy-paste material and there is still lots of information about each route you wouldn't find on the articles that briefly mentions it. I believe that the article will get longer in the future as other people with possibly more information about a route would add to this article. I would find it extremely disappointing if you still decide to deleted this article as the point of this article is to list the FI in our state, not to trying to eclipse the dedicated article like I-74 and I-73 as that is not the point of this article. It will also alert people to the FI in our state as not everyone knows where some small information about each route is located (Like U.S. Route 264 for I-587). I will be happy to fix anymore errors you point out but I think this article has good potential and shouldn't be deleted. Thank you for your time. DiscoA340 (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DiscoA340: You are allowed to vote only once. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I read was a comment, not a vote. Why are you harassing a new editor? Is your objective to make them an ex-editor? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RadioKAOS: at the time the above comment was made, there was a case that looked like double voting. That was corrected in the very next edit. Imzadi 1979 → 01:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Note there are multiple more "delete" votes above which are really statements in support of "merge". I don't see why this can't be included in
Talk:List of future interstate highways. It seems not a question for AFD. No one disputes the validity of the topic of future/proposed interstate highways in the United States, and it is just a matter of editing preferences whether or not the North Carolina should be split out or not, as a matter of managing article size. --Doncram (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I just wanted to be clear that I do, in fact, desire for this list to be deleted. The information already exists elsewhere and was copied here without attribution to those pages. There is nothing to merge. –Fredddie ™ 02:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think deletion would be better as well. I checked the individual pages and they all have the information contained in this page easily. This page serves no purposes as to list the exact same information already available elsewhere. Agree with Freddie Shirsakbc (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The point of this page is to list all of the new corridors in the state, not try to be a new page for each one. If someone is trying to find I-587 information, it is unlikely they would know to look in the US-264 page with a small section about it near the bottom. DiscoA340 (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yet where does Interstate 587 (North Carolina) redirect to, at this time? I know that if I were looking for that, the redirect would get me to the right place. Imzadi 1979 → 01:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point. Really, the main point of this wiki page is to combine all official not yet complete corridors in NC. When looking for information about said corridors, it was always cumbersome to go halfway down a page about another topic just to find meager amounts on that route. Which is why I made this article. It makes finding that information on them a lot easier to locate. If that does not meet the criteria for being a wiki page I apologize. DiscoA340 (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I haven't taken a very strong look at this but I would imagine most of the information is either in another article or could be placed in said other article. This includes the aforementioned List of Interstate Highways in North Carolina or the various pages. I don't see a compelling reason why a separate article is needed. The vast majority of these Interstates already have their own page which can be expanded if needed. The remainder have sections within preexisting pages (ie. I-42, I-885) which are often underutilized and should be expanded if the purpose is providing more information on these future North Carolina Interstates. I will also echo some of the speculation concerns and if any merge were to happen, that information shouldn't be included.--Ncchild (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Per my last sentence, this especially goes for the information about any sort of I-30 extension, I-X40 to Boone, etc. Essentially all the information at the bottom of the page. Almost all of that is sheer speculation and others just thinking of ideas. While I can understand "this was proposed in 2018" per the Jacksonville route, that really belongs under the future section of the North Carolina Highway 24 article with a reputable source to confirm it's proposal.--Ncchild (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As per my last comment, I removed all of the copy-paste material from this page. The maps, county lists, and info boxes are my creations. To address an issue Ncchild brought up, the section "other proposals" is speculation as it is currently unconfirmed by the NCDOT. But everything above that section is official as it has been designed by the NCDOT and other credible officials. Also, I believe the point of the article "List of Interstate Highways in North Carolina" is to give a list of currently completed Interstates in NC. This article is meant to give a list partially complete and future interstates in NC and to go into more detail about them that some of their parent articles do not go in. Doncram has also changed my mind on idea of merging articles, but I still think "List of future Interstates" should be left alone as it seems that the article is mainly about Federally designated Interstates and not about other proposal by local and DOT officials. Instead, I propose making an article like this one but for all proposals across all 50 states. After posting this comment, I will add a new post to talk about this issue. DiscoA340 (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think another article is needed. For one, 90% of the routes in this article aren't really future highways at all. Maybe they are partially completed, but they are still signed Interstate highways. We have an article for the Congressionally mandated or seriously proposed highways, which is List of future Interstate Highways. We could add auxiliaries, but I'd question if that would really be a good idea given that they are shown on pages such as List of Interstate Highways in North Carolina. I also would keep in mind that proposal's by DOT or local officials are only proposals until they are approved by AASHTO or the FHA. Writing about all of them would be a bit of speculation as well, as people say they want a new Interstate XX all the time, but these highways may never be seriously considered. Further, I'm not sure we can write about a sheer proposal except maybe in the future section of a preexisting article. Ncchild (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, while the AASHTO does approve of Interstates, that does not stop DOT's from building the route under other names (like NC-74 for I-274). All the routes except for the bottom are currently being built or are planned by the NCDOT which you can find on their STIP plan and current projects list. List of Future Interstates is incredibly lacking in many Future Interstates (Like I-11 and I-69) due to the fact that are technically designated already even with a majority of the route to be constructed. I-11 is officially proposed by congress and you can find the Interstate on the map in the same page, but due to the fact that a small section in Las Vegas was designated, it means that it is not considered a FI even with possibly hundreds of mileage to go. This Wiki page is meant to show all the FI in the state but it is not meant to be a new wiki page for the same route. I have added a question to the talk section on the consideration of adding other states to this list with the same issue. DiscoA340 (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about your idea of creating separate articles for each state. I'm from Alaska, which is alone among the 50 states in having Interstates that exist solely on paper. What good would such an article do when these so-called Interstates are two-lane roads with no Interstate signage, and it's been that way for many years with no attempt to upgrade the roads to Interstate standards? People already give far too much weight to things which exist solely on paper. As for your other comment about signage, I took the long way back home to Kings Grant from RDU yesterday afternoon. There are "Future Interstate 42" signs at every county line along US 70. That's significant. Should we give the same weight to roads which haven't yet been built? I don't believe so. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per your last comment. I do not plan to make an article like this for every state. , I’m sorry if I did not make that clear. To address your main concern, just because work hasn’t been done on a designated corridor does not mean the project has been stoped in any way. These roads are no different from construction on buildings. The point of this article is to inform people of these roadways, if a corridor is cancelled (which rarely happens) or is completed, it will be removed from this article. I do believe there is merit in discussing merging this page with another like it. But it should be discussed in the talk section of the page as it will get lost in this discussion. DiscoA340 (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Interstate Highways in North Carolina. Softly falling rain (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What sort of merge are you proposing? I looked at that list. It's a series of pretty tables meant to get you to click on other content, but doesn't have a whole lot of substance in and of itself. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
List of Interstate Highways in North Carolina (or similar). Softly falling rain (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2022 (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.