Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ranch to Market Road 187
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger One ping only 23:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ranch to Market Road 187 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No WP:N notability for this road. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. First two sources are not independent. Next two are just maps. The last two don't mention the road and don't varify the claims made. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Is the nominator challenging the accuracy of the historical and length information published by TxDOT? Sources such as that have been accepted at WP:FAC for articles like U.S. Route 2 in Michigan, M-6 (Michigan highway), etc. (I can list 40 more articles, all of which use official DOT sources.) Is the nominator saying that maps are not reliable in general? Is Google Maps not independent? As for the footnote on the movie, if the nominator would simple cross reference the locations mentioned to Google Maps, he would see that they are all on the subject roadway. In general, per past precedents, state highways are generally kept here at AfD. Imzadi 1979 → 08:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As Imzadi 1979 → stated, DOT pages have always been accepted references. Otherwise, all, if not most, of the articles on Farm to Market Roads would have to be deleted. Just in case, though, I added a few book sources.
Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 08:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] - Comment - This article was just recently listed as a Wikipedia Good article. Why was this article nominated for removal from the encyclopedia? The nominator should seriously consider being less hasty in nominating people's work and good articles for deletion. Also, the nomination appears to base notability upon sources only in the article, rather than upon the availability of reliable sources. Topic notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources, not just those that are within articles. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all roads are notable, so long as they can be verified to actually exist. EnvoyClass (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Farm to Market Roads in Texas are notable enough for articles per WP:USRD/NT and DOT sources are allowed in articles. Dough4872 19:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A numbered state highway, article is part of Wikipedia's comprehensive and encyclopedic coverage of Texas's extensive highway system, no good reason is given to delete this.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Recognized by TxDOT as a the longest RM in the system, which should confer some notability. Also, the article is rated as a GA; any notability and reference problems should have been found during the GA review. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Farm to Market and Ranch to Market roads in Texas are considered notable since TxDOT bothered to designate them and maps cover their routes, both of which guarantee suitable references will exist. This road is no exception, especially since it has several references which go beyond DOT/map coverage. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 06:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per WP:OUTCOMES, numbered highways maintained by a state DOT are considered notable. As this article passed GA review, the claim of inadequate sourcing is not justified. --Kinu t/c 21:16, 17 March 2012 (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.