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 U.S. Route 92. We seem to have an atlas verifying that the road existed at some time under this name, but the current content is unsourced and as as such unsuitable for a merger. Of course, any merger can be done from the history if sources are provided.  Sandstein  05:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Florida State Road 600A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Part of a group of articles that survived mass AfD (as State Road 600A (Florida)) in August 2006, this entry has not been expanded since and is incomplete. This "ministub" references three former road sections, but gives brief detail of only one, and gives no indication if this road still exists. There are no references to enable the casual editor to help expand the article. Apart from bot and gnome edits, there appears to be no interest in expanding the article into an encyclopedic entry. I consider that such a "stub" would not now be acceptable as being of a reasonable standard, and am AfD'ing it since I cannot PROD it since it has already survived an earlier deletion review and I have undertaken not to Speedy delete such articles without review. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. Please note that I did WP:PROD the article, but self removed it upon realising it had been AfD'ed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No context. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Merge into U.S. Route 92 (internally designated FL600) as a bannered route (A typically standing for alternate). Admrboltz (talk) 05:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Admrboltz. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 12:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would say merge per above, but there's nothing to merge. It's a one sentence article. Dave (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to U.S. Route 92, since there's nothing to merge but it is a plausible search term. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to U.S. Route 92, this appears to be a former route closely associated with that route and there is probably not much to add to the FL 600A article. Dough4872 (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Nothing to merge, still a valid search term.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 18:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per above. --Triadian (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect --199.254.212.44 (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please Delete WITHOUT REDIRECT and without merge. Nothing on this page is sourced (the article has existed for ample enough time for sources to be added). Therefore, redirecting this search term to another page would not be WP:Verifiable. You might as well redirect to Pink Elephants on Parade as to U.S. Route 92 since there is no source given to relate the statements on Florida State Road 600A to either page. Also, do we really want to merge unsourced material into another page? Or is there some policy I am unaware of which overrides WP:Verifiability during the deletion process. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What? We know this road exists. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a valid point. As for sources, the 1965 Rand McNally Road Atlas shows 600A on Manhattan Avenue in a rectangle, meaning it's either a secondary state or county road. I don't think Florida had county roads until the 1980s, and even now the systems are interconnected such that a redirect from one to the other would be useful. --NE2 06:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• We "know" no such thing - and unlike "water is wet", it needs to be reliably sourced. Even a 1965, or 1995, road map is no evidence of it continuing to exist. A 1965 road map probably provides sufficient evidence to make the title a redirect, since it is then a search criteria, but still not to make if a merge candidate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If you have the source, please add it to the article and I will change my comment above. I would consider the 1965 Rand McNally atlas to be WP:RELIABLE and WP:SECONDARY and that would answer my concern (even if the reference is not on-line and only exists in real life). (I state the importance of a reliable, secondary source, because this is an example of an unsigned FDOT state route, bringing notability into question. An FDOT map would be a primary source.) - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to U.S. Route 92 I don't think you need a secondary source to support a redirect. Racepacket (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I would have to think that people are asking for a redirect because SR 600A is a sub-topic of US92 (SR 600). Under this editing guideline, the sub topic of SR600A should be explained within the article. In order to explain it within the article, it needs to be sourced.
  Misspellings, tenses and capitalisations do not require any sources under the WP:Redirect guideline. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, please read note 3 on the policy page WP:Verifiability where the founder of WP says that unsourced information should be agressively removed. Unless Florida State Road 600A can be sourced (and proven to exist), I interpret this to mean that the term needs to be removed from WP. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 04:27, 25 September 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.