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 redirect to List of county roads in Brevard County, Florida. If necessary, the history can always be accessed to smerge any content. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

County Road 509 (Brevard County, Florida)[edit]

County Road 509 (Brevard County, Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable as a stand alone article. Suggest merger/redirection into List of county roads in Brevard County, Florida. Imzadi 1979 → 01:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - Per nom. Dough4872 01:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has value & potential for expansion. FieldMarine (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Value", sans context, is subjective and in the eyes of the beholder. The potential to be a good article is not a valid reason for keeping. If this potential indeed exists, then expand the article with this potential so that you can actually back up that assertion. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least part of the value stems from the people in the local area looking for info on a popular route, as noted in the comment below. Brevard County is a relatively large area, with a higher population then some states in the U.S. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But wikipedia isn't a street directory. The article as is has the terminii, length, the communities encountered, and mention of a few things by the road (two airfields). The only piece of information that could possibly be lost in that is the two airfields; the rest would be inserted in the table (which should have a column listing the communities). The wayfinding value of this article (practically zero for any road article, thats why we use street maps instead of directional guides today) would not be lost in this transition. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Wikipedia articles on roads would not provide useful navigation information for wayfinding. My point is the article has potential value in providing information on the history of this road & it’s importance or impact to the development of the area, etc . Or perhaps how the road has changed through the years going from a regular road to a county road, which provides useful historical information. Like any stub, it provides a placeholder for this kind of information for future development of the article. No doubt the article needs work, but if it is deleted, the work will stop. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except, the article itself is not proposed for deletion. It has been proposed for merger/redirection into the list article. As such, should its entry become too lengthy in the list at a future date, it can be split back out. Case in point, List of Michigan County-Designated Highways was formed from the merger of all of the various County-Designated Highway articles. (These are not the same as county roads, which also exist in Michigan.) C-66, F-41, H-58 and H-63 plus "H-16" were all expanded into full articles that demonstrate notability, provide full information on the routing and history and a junction list. Such level of detail would unbalance the list article, so they were all split back out of the list leaving a ((main)) tag and summary behind. In the case here, the article title would be preserved as a redirect, with its full edit history intact. At a later date, should someone wish to expand the article content further, the redirect can be reversed and the article edited. Until that time, there is really no information in the current article that's not in the list. Imzadi 1979 → 17:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History section added. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is unsourced. Imzadi 1979 → 01:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Major road in the south county. Minton-Wickham, probably the fourth most traveled road(s) in the area. Student7 (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per USRD's notability guidelines and nom. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. Completely unsourced article. Wikipedia should not be a street map in prose. In fact, I wouldn't see much benefit in a street map written in prose outside of Wikipedia, either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. – TMF 05:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. I fully endorse the nominator's rationale. –Fredddie™ 21:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom and WP:USRD/NT. --Rschen7754 23:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Note that current merger target is nearly devoid of the type of information contained in this article. Just name, rank and serial number. That's it!  :) Student7 (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And it couldn't be added in the proposed merger? Imzadi 1979 → 01:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a lot of info to place in a notes section. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the history section is all unsourced and speculative. The fact that it's named for someone could be merged into the notes section, but the rest of the history section really needs sources or it needs to be removed from the current article as WP:OR. As for the "lead" of the article, most of that is superfluous information that can be condensed into a more concise format in the merger Imzadi 1979 → 03:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The destination page has been convered from a pure table into a RCS style list. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, with the addition of the "History section" to this article, which was not present when this discussion started, I request this article be relisted again for the merger discussion. Thanks & Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2011 (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.