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. IrishGuy ^talk 22:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of highways numbered 888[edit]

List of highways numbered 888 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Badly named for a disambig, but even then, we have no need for a disambig to three red links. Useless page, IMHO. TexasAndroid 16:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unnecessary disambig page Lurker ^oi! 16:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and sow the earth with salt. Man, if I had so much time on my hands that I created a "List of highways numbered X" article, I'd go volunteer at a soup kitchen or something. RGTraynor 17:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See below, seems like there's been a lot of soup kitchens missing volunteers in the last few years... Caknuck 18:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seemingly so. RGTraynor 18:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessary dab page. Otto4711 17:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep According to Google, there are at least 284 pages of this type in WP. Considering that numbered state highways are considered to be inherently notable, these redlinks will eventually be filled in. I'd suggest referring this to U.S. Highway WikiProject. Caknuck 18:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When there are multiple articles about highways numbered 888, then it will be appropriate to have a dismabig page. Not before. Lurker ^oi! 18:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen mixed sentiments about how to handle lists/dab pages with redlinks. Some say leave them be if there's a reasonable expectation that the articles are forthcoming. Others say delete and recreate the list/dab page when necessary. Personally, I support the compromise of creating stub articles for the redlinks in question and leaving the list/page in place. Caknuck 18:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The assertion that all highways or any other group of things or people are "inherently notable" is disputed. There is no such policy. Edison 18:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree in this context. Please see WP:OUTCOMES#Transportation and geography, which asserts that consensus has shown that numbered state highways are notable enough for inclusion. While it isn't policy, it is established precedent. And no, it doesn't cover link/dab pages for these highways, but it does leave it open for inclusion once those articles are submitted. Caknuck 21:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps consensus is changing. It has on other things. The way it will be seen to change in in the shifting balance of opinions here. We are not bound by that precedent, if enough voices start saying otherwise. Not with any expectation that it has yet changed, I also say Delete in the hope that this will eventually become the general opinion.DGG 02:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't contend or contest the consensus that numbered highways are (or can be, anyway) notable. But lists of them? That's a level of meaningless cruftiness akin to making a list of everything colored blue, for instance. RGTraynor 16:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I will say first that state highways ARE notable. However, a list of three highways sharing the same number is pointless listcruft. Regardless of whether or not those articles exist or will exist, this list should not. --Sable232 21:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listcruft is not valid reasoning. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 21:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Although the pages haven't been created, they will, and this page will stay, as there could be more highways with the number 888 that we haven't found yet.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 21:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is supposed to be a disambiguation page for ambiguous names like "Highway 888" or "Route 888". The title is just the way it is as a catch all for any road (whatever its specific label) with the number 888. The fact that linked articles do not currently exist is not a strong reason to delete a disambiguation page. --Polaron | Talk 22:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Polaron. Links like Route 888, Highway 888, State Route 888, etc., need somewhere to redirect to. A disambiguation page is the only option. -- NORTH ^talk 22:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per V60, Polaron and Northenglish • master_son^{Lets talk} 22:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "...When a single term can be associated with more than one topic" (WP:DAB), disambiguation is necessary. This is not a list of routes as some have said above - this is a page that distinguishes one road numbered 888 from another. One article has been created; another has been redirected to a proper location. The third of the original links, that for State Road 888 in Florida, is a bit sketchy, as I've yet to see anything proving SR 888's existence other than pages on Wikipedia. I also disagree with the nominator's comment that the disambiguation page is "badly named", as there's really no other way to name this page that will please all that are involved in road editing. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; this is a disambiguation page, not "listcruft". Route 888, Highway 888, etc. all redirect here. --NE2 23:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; this article has improved in just 1 day, so there is certainly interest in keeping it. The list is longer, and 2 of the listings have their own articles. 24.247.128.161 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.247.128.161 (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. This name has been supported by consensus, and furthermore, this is a needed disambiguation page. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/clarification. The reason for the listy title rather than a simple disambiguation title is to not show preference of Route X vs. Highway X. Similarly, separate pages for Route 888 and Highway 888 would not work because there's so much overlap between the two names. It's entirely possible that someone would search for "Highway 51" when they're actually looking for New Jersey Route 51. -- NORTH ^talk 22:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, with reservations; I definitely understand the need for the dab page as such, hence my vote to keep. However, my reservation is why should it be a list instead of an honest dab page? "Preferencial treatment"? Why not just alpha the dab and there's be no special treatment given? Definitely see a need, but maybe this should just be reworded to sound more like a dab than unintentionally like a space-waster. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 01:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it follows the disambiguation guidelines; see PRR and Fifth Avenue Line for similar ones. --NE2 02:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's the naming more than anything that's drawing all the attention. While I know it was said by Rschen the name was agreed upon via consenus, and I see where TMF said that there was no better way, I disagree. In calling it a "list", this quite possibly might be the only thing bringing this to AfD anyway; I honestly believe by naming this page any of the redirects, Route 888, Highway 888, or even Roads designated 888 without the "list" moniker will end all this unnecessary discussion and allow this obviously necessary dab stay in tact, as this is the only dab I know of called a "list" in its title. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 02:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep contigent on renaming according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. And yes, the naming for these dab pages probably needs to be discussed. Vegaswikian 05:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It was discussed previously, see Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation/Archive_15#.22List_of_highways_numbered_X.22. --Holderca1 14:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Move all of them to Highway X. I understand the not wanting to show preferential treatment to one name over the other, but at the current title, they are still being called highways, just with a lot of wordiness thrown in. Move them all to Highway X and add the obligatory Route X, State Road X, etc... redirects here at the top. --Holderca1 14:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are all "highways" (lower-case h, common noun), but they are not all "Highways" (capital h, proper noun). -- NORTH ^talk 18:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is why I suggested "Roads designated 888" or less wordy-sounding, "Roads numbered 888". The point's still the same. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 19:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or "Highways numbered X," highway is only capitalized due to being the first letter of the article, not because it is a proper noun. Just get rid of "List of" from the beginning. --Holderca1 19:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's already a naming convention in place for these types of articles (List of highways numbered 1, List of highways numbered 2, etc...), so this article is no exception. If an NC has already been established, just like after the conclusion of SRNC, then we shouldn't change it without a suttle discussion. And yes, NORTH is correct about the difference about common and proper nouns.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 19:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am aware of the naming convention, just not sure it is the best naming convention. I said to move all of them, not just this one. I believe we are discussing it right now, nothing has been changed yet and nothing will be changed until a consensus is arrived at. Since the naming of the articles has been brought into question, it needs to be revisited, if consensus says to leave them where they are, so be it. As a side note, I have never seen a dab page titled "list of ..." I never intended for highway to be a proper to be a proper noun, just like every other word at the start of a sentence or article title, it is capitalized, which doesn't make it a proper noun. Let us also remember that this is a dab page, we are not saying that State Road A1A in Florida is Highway A1A, it is just a guide for those that aren't familiar with every state's naming convention for it's highway. --Holderca1 20:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Roads numbered X or Highways numbered X would be okay in my book. I'm just not sure mere removal of the words "List of" will eliminate the problem (to the extent that such a problem exists). It is something I'd be willing to try if there's consensus to do so, though.

          I'm sorry if I put words in your mouth, Holderca. I was just pointing out the distinction. A title like "Highways numbered X" or "List of highways numbered X" does not give that impression, but "Highway X" does. -- NORTH ^talk 20:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent) "Roads numbered X" is probably the best option (as it avoids the Highway-highway usage completely). I'd be willing to support "Highways numbered X" though. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think "highways" is fine, as they're all state highways, members of the Interstate Highway System, or one of the United States Numbered Highways (save the few international ones). "Roads" would open up a whole new can of worms – imagine every road named "First Street" on the page Roads numbered 1. -- NORTH ^talk 21:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, the current NC would even set a notability criteria for these highways. Just look at all of the other dab pages...the criteria for inclusion is already defined. Even more so, these dab pages are extremely popular pages—if one were to move all of these dab pages, there would be a whole lot of double redirects from existing redirects not being fixed yet!  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 23:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, how does "List of highways numbered X" set a notability criteria that "Highways numbered X" does not? Double redirects is not a valid argument for keeping the status quo. It also didn't stop people from moving thousands of articles in relation to WP:SRNC. --Holderca1 09:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Highways numbered X" name has nothing to do with a notability criteria. As NORTH has mentioned above, it is simply a matter of grammar.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 22:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am still a bit a lost, "List of Highways numbered X" name has nothing to do with notability criteria either. North makes no mention of "Highways numbered X" being grammatically incorrect, he is actually okay with it. [1] --Holderca1 22:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also lost. -- NORTH ^talk 22:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per practicality. This is a disambiguation page, even if it does not have the best name. Disambig pages are judged by two criteria only: NPOV and usefulness. I find it hard to see how this article could be POV (the highway numbered 888 I live next to is better than yours!?), so only the issue of usefulness is left. I find it to be useful. Three of the 5 links are redlinks, but that aids the development of new articles. It's not like this is a list of personal driveways; these are major regional or local transportation routes. I am tempted to suggest that the article be renamed, but I'm having difficulty thinking of a good alternative. Maybe "888 (roads)", or "888 (highways)"? -- Black Falcon 02:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and the same goes for every other page like it, even those with only one route number. ---- DanTD 18:52, 14 March 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.