Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M-132 (Michigan highway)

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. Consensus for GNG from RS.

(non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

M-132 (Michigan highway)

[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)

Largely procedural nomination. This was

WP:NOPAGE and should be a redirect to List of state trunkline highways in Michigan. If there’s a place to get definitive consensus, it'd be here; I personally have no opinion yet. ^Queen of _Hearts 19:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United States of America. ^Queen of _Hearts 19:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are sufficient reliable, independent sources, especially in the History section, to demonstrate notability. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Schierbecker, Imzadi1979, Ritchie333, Szmenderowiecki, Serial Number 54129, Horse Eye's Back, AirshipJungleman29, JPxG, David Fuchs, Trainsandotherthings, and BilledMammal: ping everyone who opined in the GAR. ^Queen of _Hearts 19:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of state trunkline highways in Michigan per ATD-R; insufficient reliable, independent sources to justify a standalone page. Redirection ensues the article's history is maintained for the WP:READER. ——Serial 20:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question from a user who knows nothing about roads: does this pass
WP:NROAD? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
It passes
GNG, so it doesn't matter, but it also passes NROAD. jp×g 🗯️ 21:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
How does it pass either GNG or NROAD? By my reading it passes neither. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as a state highway. In my reading, the crux of the redirect argument is not that it isn't notable, but that it fails
WP:NOPAGE. ^Queen of _Hearts 22:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep. If the argument against inclusion is that this is notable but we should throw in a vaguewave to NOPAGE to get rid of a good article that
WP:SNGs – should be kept. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@BeanieFan11: how does it meet GNG and the relevant SNG without even a single piece of significant independent coverage? Both standards require it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NROAD mentions nothing of a requirement that GNG be met as far as I can tell? I do note that sources may be combined to demonstrate notability (
WP:NBASIC); and roads aren't the most talked-about subject; we shouldn't be overly strict with our deletion enforcement on them, especially when their decent quality and pass the SNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
NROAD says "typically notable" not automatically notable so we do actually need significant coverage in independent sources, it isn't a question of being overly strict... Its a question of being immense leniency to point of IAR. So which sources demonstrate notability? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point of NROAD stating "typically notable" if it means absolutely nothing, which is what you're suggesting? Additionally, there appears to be overall enough sources to build a decent-sized, policy-compliant article, which is the point of notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't mean absolutely nothing it means "typically notable" as in most are notable but some are not. We have requirements about those sources to count towards notability, for example that they be independent. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

State highways don't get an automatic pass through NROAD, what are you talking about? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I will say here what I said there: sometimes a topic doesn't need to have 70 paragraphs written about it. I have driven on this road; it's pretty nice. But it's not that long. There's nothing wrong with the road, there's nothing wrong with the topic of the road, and there's nothing wrong with our article on the road: it cites reliable sources to inform readers about it. It's also got some detailed historical information that would otherwise be quite difficult to come across (like the fact that was in the original planned route for the highway that later became 94, or the fact that parcels in its right-of-way were deeded by Henry Ford in 1933). Lest somebody say "You're saying it's useful, which means you're wrong, and if it's useful that actually means it should be deleted", this is why I don't think it should be crammed into a list, there's too much content and too much information to be made a list entry without bloating out the list. I really don't see a reason to get rid of this other than not liking it or thinking it's stupid. Wikipedia is not a comedy forum where we make lists of things we think are dumb, it's an encylopedia, so if something is an encylopedia article it belongs here. jp×g 🗯️ 21:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So the argument is

WP:IAR? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

No, the argument is the extremely large number of policies that govern notability and content on Wikipedia, all of which this article complies with. Do you have an explanation for how this doesn't meet GNG? Do you have a reason why the fifteen sources on the page are all bad? jp×g 🗯️ 04:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, hence failing both the GNG and the SNG. None of the 15 sources on the page contain significant coverage in a reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This isn't detailed enough for a GA, but there is just enough information in the history section to show the article can have insights and explanations that go beyond what can be glanced at from a map. (Note, I suggested a redirect in the GAR, but there are a few threads of potential, such as an explanation for the name changes, and its relevance for the Michigan State Spartans football). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't have any significant coverage in independent sources and in order to keep it under either GNG or NROAD we would need multiple. If there are sources beyond the ones on the page which contribute to notability can someone name them? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Merging is not a realistic option when the target is a list that has to also cover 300 other highways in the state. The existing sources in the article are sufficient and don't run afoul of GNG nor our other policies on sourcing as it stands. Sounder Bruce 04:02, 5 February 2024 (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.