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. Merging is not a subject for AfD, so conclusion on that topic to be drawn from this close Fritzpoll (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The road appears to have some notability, since it is part of the NHS, connects to many important highways, and has sufficient sourcing. It does need an infobox though. Dough4872 (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Michiana Parkway, which should be rewritten into an actual article. M-217 should be merged in as well unless enough independent history exists for it to remain as a standalone article. – TMF 20:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments — I'll echo the sentiments above a bit. I'm not partial to merging M-217 into Michiana Parkway. I'd be more likely to merge CR 17 into Michiana Parkway, enter in the M-217 info as a summary using ((main)) templates. If it weren't just classified as a county road, and were a state highway, we probably wouldn't have this debate at all. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It very likely would be a state highway if Indiana didn't have a legislative cap on state highway mileage. There's no reason to treat the two pieces of the same road differently; it was built as one project, and all the history is the same. --NE2 22:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient sources exist to establish notability (eg. [3]). –Juliancolton | Talk 21:15, 22 May 2009 (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.