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. KaisaL (talk) 09:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hale Interchange[edit]

Hale Interchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Generic highway interchange with no sources or assertion of notability. Yes there are a number of local news articles covering car accidents that happened on it and listings on the state department of transportation about routine construction happening on it, but notability is not established (is already discussed on the notable highways that use it). Reywas92^Talk 01:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 01:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 01:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, but only per what can be expanded in the next week. This is an expansion candidate, but not in its current form where it has few to no links with any other Milwaukee or WI-related transportation topics. If it can't, I will switch my vote! to delete. Nate • (chatter) 03:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not sure what it can be expanded with. A list of traffic accidents doesn't really cut and that's all there seems to be. Nominations are based on the current state of the article and sourcing anyway. Maybe it might be expanded to be notable, but it currently isn't. Feel free to prove me wrong though. I'm perfectly willing to change my vote if someone wants to ping me when it is expanded to an adequate level. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Weak keep Run-of-the-WP:MILL interchange that fails WP:GNG. All mentions are trivial, with no WP:SIGCOV that goes into detail about its history and /or importance. StonyBrook (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC) Changed !vote due to better sources having being found. StonyBrook (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I have been working on a draft about freeways and interchanges of Milwaukee. There is coverage out there, but it's not as easy to find when you're not a Milwaukee local. Anyway, if this article is deleted, I will recreate the redlink and redirect to the freeways and interchanges article once complete. –Fredddie™ 03:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  You know I'm always happy to endorse a merge! Reywas92^Talk 03:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Note this is mentioned in List of road interchanges in the United States, and coverage there could be expanded. It should not be deleted outright, there is no reason not to have a redirect to coverage about it in the list-article or in a new Milwaukee article. Deletion only to re-create it later is violation of various Wikipedia principles, see excellent-if-i-do-say-so essay wp:TNTTNT. Seems notable on its own; leave potential merger based on editorial considerations to editor(s) involved in this area; no need to impose constraint from afar. --Doncram (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Google News searching is overwhelmed by reports of accidents and the like, but Google Books searching yields numerous government reports about the interchange and routes leading to and fro, such as "A regional freeway system reconstruction plan for Southeastern Wisconsin", etc. These numerous sources would be conveniently available to a Wisconsin editor with access to government documents; for others it would require more effort to obtain. I added some to the article, including statement of 1966 construction and a bit more. General other sources are available (tho not all online) which discuss the interchange include:

• Greater Milwaukee's growing pains, 1950-2000: an insider's view Richard W. Cutler, Milwaukee County Historical Society, 2001 - Architecture - 308 pages: "This book examines the historic trends and battles which shaped Milwaukee in the past fifty years, including the boundary wars of the 1950s between city and suburban towns and municipalities, freeway construction, and arguments and lawsuits over flooding and the polluting of Lake Michigan." (not on-line, apparently)

--Doncram (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that pointing out that the article is listed in List of road interchanges in the United States is WP:CIRCULAR reasoning; and the list article is not a candidate for a merge either, this article sinks or swims on its own. It there is book coverage out there, it would need to be found discussing the interchange itself and its history, not just trivially. StonyBrook (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete and possibly merge. Although I find it's design kind of unique; in the article's current state, I am completely for deletion and completing a merger if a suitable location is found to merge it into. It feels more like a travel guide just simply listing the highways that run on it and their control cities. There has been a maintenance tag on the article for just over 4 years now and the article is still not supported by any citations. If the article is improved with citations and some information on items like its history than I will be willing to support keeping it. At this time I see no notability in keeping it because of its accidents this interchange still is safer than other roads in Wisconsin and its current construction is just preventive maintenance. --KDTW Flyer (talk 00:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A few !votes reflect apparent belief that sources exist and the topic is notable, but editors are trying to withhold "Keep" vote as a matter of trying to force improvement right now. However, wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --Doncram (talk) 10:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—if the recently updated content is indicative of things to come, and I believe that it is, then there's no reason to delete. Also, AfD isn't for clean up, and an arbitrary deadline of the end of the week here should not stop progress toward further expansion. Imzadi 1979 → 19:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Adamant1 and Nate say that they are basing their opinion on the current state of the article, with Adamant1 directly saying, "Nominations are based on the current state of the article and sourcing anyway." This is not correct. WP:ARTN says "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article... If the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." Similarly, KDTW Flyer says "There has been a maintenance tag on the article for just over 4 years now," which is also not relevant, per WP:IMPATIENT. According to WP:NEXIST, "notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources." I'm not posting a Keep !vote myself, just because I know nothing about highway articles :) and can't judge the quality of the sources provided so far. -- Toughpigs (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, Toughpigs, while I generally agree with you, the comment you cited was directly in response to the weak keep above my vote where the person said it was savable due to being an expansion candidate. Which both isn't a valid reason to keep an article and also never happened. If notability isn't a property of the article as you say, it shouldn't be based on the future property of an article either. If article content wasn't brought up as a keep reason, I wouldn't have brought it up as a delete reason. Apparently though, I can't vote delete based on the current state of the article, but it's fine if people vote keep based on what they think the state of the article will be. The last keep vote above your comment, which your also not calling out despite also being about content because it's a keep, is a perfectly example of that. "recently updated content is indicative of things to come." So, keeping articles because of perceptions about future article content is fine, but deleting articles based on present lack of notable sources (which was what my vote was mainly about) isn't? Alright. Seems a little bias toward keeping the article, but whatever. BTW, see WP:GNG "editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub". So, article content isn't completely divorced from this process. Is a highway interchange, that lacks in-depth reliable sourcing, worth having a permanent stub over? Not in my opinion. Your free disagree to though. Just don't be one sided about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that vague promises of sources with no action is also not a good deletion argument, that's part of WP:IMPATIENT. The thing that matters for notability is the quality of sources that can be found either in the article or during the deletion discussion. -- Toughpigs (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Totally agreed. I was in the process of re-writing my comment to be more neutral and to clarify things when you posted yours, because it seems more defensive on second glance then I had intended it to be. Obviously content shouldn't be the main factor in an AfD and it wasn't in my vote. Content, instead of sourcing, does seem to be the main rationalization for the majority of votes in this AfD though for some reason. So, in this case it seemed better to address it then not. Although, I do agree content is irrelevant most of the time. No one should vote delete solely because the article is a stub or visa versa. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It has numerous independent reliable sources. It is one of only about 5 named intersections in the entire state of Wisconsin and not run of the mill. This article could be expanded which isn't a reason to delete as others have mentioned. Royalbroil 03:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Could be" being the important thing here. It's doubtful it will be. Especially since someone already said it would be expanded a week ago and it never happened. Generally, we shouldn't vote based on perceptions of future article quality. Also, id like to know where the claim of numerous independent reliable sources comes from. There only seems to be a few at best and even those are questionable. Unless your counting coverage of accidents. Which you really shouldn't be. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So help fix it. Not all of us in the keep camp have the time nor the wherewithal to fix this article right now. I had more time a few weeks ago before the company I work for went into a tailspin and now I'm out of state and my newspapers.com sub just expired. Timing is everything, and this AFD has shitty timing. –Fredddie™ 03:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In addition to the sources already in the article, there's this magazine piece about how the interchange has a reputation for speed enforcement and several regional planning reports that could be used to flesh out an article. As far as I'm concerned, that's enough significant coverage to keep this. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 12:37, 11 March 2020 (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.