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. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pakenham bypass[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Pakenham bypass (2nd nomination)

The information is brief, there are very few references, and if you refer to the Princes Freeway article, you will see that the information for the bypass is there. There is no sufficient information in this article to be kept. Rom rulz424 (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge- When does bypasses of a highway qualify for an article? Merging is the best option. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Princes Freeway An article about a bypass in a road does not qualify for an article, however, it could be a useful section of Princes Freeway. Anonymous101 (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Princes Freeway (and don't delete; see WP:MAD). Bypasses can be notable, but this one is just a section of a longer freeway. --NE2 09:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, it's a notable part of the freeway and is likely a valid search term. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 23:56, 29 June 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.