Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reversible express lanes in Seattle, Washington

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 Merge; (action to be taken by others). The nomination did not provide any justification for a delete outcome, which suggests this was the wrong venue for the discussion to begin with. Although some participants opined that deletion was the proper course of action, these minority opinions were countered by a preponderance of merge or keep opinions. The discussion did not reach a consensus as to exactly what content was to be merged where, so it is not reasonable to expect a closing administrator to carry out the merge. As well, AfD is not 'articles for editing' or 'articles for merge'.Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reversible express lanes in Seattle, Washington

Reversible express lanes in Seattle, Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log

)

• Merge into both Interstate 5 in Washington and Interstate 90 in Washington as appropriate. Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 21:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close as merge since the nominator doesn't even suggest deleting it. The two express lanes have very little to do with each other, and thus should be covered on the articles in the individual highways instead. --
  talk) 16:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Close as possible merge, which I'm not sure is a good idea; these things may merit their own article(s) much like the Sounder commuter rail operates over BNSF Railway trackage. --NE2 17:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category: AfD debates (Places and transportation)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Any possible merge into I-90 or I-5 would be redundant as the info is already there. Just delete the thing. Tavix (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge any useful content into I-90 or I-5 (provided it's not already there). These lanes aren't really notable for anything. These aren't the [Zip lanes]in Hawai'i, which I should point out still aren't notable enough for an article of its own. --Seascic ^T/_C 16:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reversible express lanes are very common. Adequately covered in the other articles about the roads involved.Edison (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Besides what others have said, the article is sourced only by primary sources: The government agencies that set up the lanes and run them. The is no evidence that secondary sources have found them interesting enough to mention. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The info is not already adequately covered in the merge targets. The I-90 article has a single sentence saying that they run from Seattle to Bellevue, and the I-5 article doesn't mention the express lanes at all. --
  talk) 20:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The lanes exist on two separate interstates, and have for years. The lack of secondary sources in the article is most likely due to failure to search for them. Cleanup is not a reason for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, the lanes exist on two separate interstates, so it doesn't really make sense to have them in a single article like this. And since people haven't searched and expanded the material, there's not really enough to warrant having them separate from the actual interstate articles. --

talk) 22:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Have you ever traveled in Seattle at rush hour? The express lanes, both I-5 and I-90, are part of a unified attempt to deal with commuting here. That is, I fully believe they fit in their own article. As far as sources,

WP:TIND. Let's see, 10 seconds to search ProQuest and we come up with "Mike Lindblom. Seattle Times. Seattle, Wash.: Mar 29, 2008. pg. B.1 abstract: 'The express lanes of Interstate 5 go to waste every weekday for 50 minutes, the time it takes to reverse direction from southbound to northbound.'" That's one of 370 ProQuest references--while many of them may not deal with the reversability per se, they're all from RS's and a much better indicator of notability than ghits. Jclemens (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• The
  Reversible express lanes in Seattle, Washington to it. — CharlotteWebb 23:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Just as we'd keep a major interchange, we should keep these. A related common feature for the two roads. . DGG (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. This information is not notable for its own article. It is notable to keep in the texts of I-5 and I-90, however. And just because they're important to traffic in Seattle doesn't mean that grants notability for an article on Wikipedia. --
  talk) 04:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Commemt -- I do not think this article is needed, but the reversible lane article givesonly very brief details of roads with them worldwide. I would have throught there might be a case for a series of regional aricles. Note that "Suicide lanes" currently redirects to "reversible lane". It might thus be possible to use this article as a starting point for Reversible lanes in Washington (state). Peterkingiron (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Are there any other reversible lanes in Washington State? I'm not aware of any. Jclemens (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There are not --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 00:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into reversible lane and maybe add a short bit to the affected roads. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge where appropriate. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:48, 5 August 2008 (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.