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 (non-admin closure), consensus is to keep (merge), I'll place a merge tag on page Fr33kman^{talk APW} 19:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts Route C1[edit]

Massachusetts Route C1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The article doesn't give any information to establish the notability of the road, and the road ceased to exist under that name in 1971. When I nominated it for PROD, Polaron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) commented "(numbered routes are likely noteworthy)". I don't see that that's so. There are thousands and thousands of numbered roads. All numbering generally means is that the roads are under a particular authority that is using numbers to identify them. Many of them go from point A to point B, may have certain buildings or facilities on them that are themselves notable, or residents who are notable, but that doesn't make the street on which they live notable for its own sake, justifying an article in an encyclopedia. If there is anything notable about the road, I believe the article needs to give some indication of what it is. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Into an article of loops of Route 1, or Delete as non notable per WP:USRD/NT Admrb♉ltz (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a state-numbered route and Massachusetts does not have a secondary highway system so, as is, it does qualify for inclusion under WP:USRD/NT. That said, this is more like a bannered route of US 1 and should be merged there as their histories are intertwined. --Polaron | Talk 23:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the article you cited: "However, the article should still make some claim of the highway's individual notability, such as historical significance, press coverage, etc. ... Highways that have very little to say about them (i.e. those that are extremely short and have no historical significance) may be better suited to a list, ...." —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You think the existence of a redirect to US 1 is harmful? --Polaron | Talk 01:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. It's likely that people reading about C1 would be interested in US_1_(MA) and vice-versa. A redirect would allow C1 to exist as an entry in lists or templates. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per Polaron. This information should not be deleted wholesale. --Son (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge as appropriate. No need to delete the information. For those of you who don't know Boston, the Central Artery is the epitome of noteworthiness in the city. Identifying C1 with the Central Artery is definitely a strong claim of notability. Fg2 (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While simply having a number isn't a gauge of notability, being assigned a number as part of the state highway system is, due to the large number of roads in any given state and the small fraction of which become a state highway. Precedent: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nevada State Route 401, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia SR Loop 120, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia State Route 10, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York State Route 365, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota State Highway 91, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota State Highway 127, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 999, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nebraska Spur 10A. See also User:Scott5114/Highway notability FAQ. At the very least this could be merged to whatever highway it became. It does need expansion, though.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I suppose precedent is precedent, but just as a gauge of the quality of that precedent, it's like saying that only a small fraction of US university students receives the honor of induction in Phi Beta Kappa, so all members of Phi Beta Kappa are inherently notable on that account and worth of a Wikipedia article even if there isn't anything to be said about them other than the fact of their PBK membership. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • When roads are put in the state highway system, however, the routes receive state maintenance, extra signage (shields), and other such benefits. For the DOT to justify spending state money on these things, the route has to be important enough to warrant it (e.g. high traffic volumes, or being the most direct route into a town or between two cities). By taking on its maintenance, a state DOT asserts that the road is important on a statewide scale, not merely a local one. Only a tiny percentage of roads get this honor. (By the way, just because a route has been decommissioned (the designation is no longer active) it can still have a decent article written about it—see M-554, which is a Good Article.) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I appreciate what you're saying about the importance and value of these roads, but as a general matter importance is not equivalent to notability, at least in my opinion. My county's sewage system is tremendously important—we couldn't do without it—and the local government pours plenty of money into it, but I wouldn't call it noteworthy. What would an article about it say? "Arlington County's sewage system serves the sewage needs of the residents and businesses of Arlington County." —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If I may interject here, that's a false analogy. There are plenty of roadgeeks (hobbyists) and map lovers who would want to know what these city routes were, where they went and why they were superseded. Not too many of those for sewers. It is somewhat more like a person interested in postage stamps who wants to know: "why were there 'Special Delivery' stamps?" Sswonk (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Plus, highways are more visible to the public than sewer systems. Most people don't know and don't have any reason to care about which sewer line they're on, and where all the various branches lead to, because it's all underground and they don't interact with it on a daily basis. However, most people probably have to know where the various highways spreading out from their city lead to. Also, suppose someone was doing research on a topic through newspaper archives, and late 1960s article makes some reference to an event occurring along Route C1, or a building along it. A modern reader would most likely be unaware of this highway...it's conceivable they might turn to Wikipedia for the needed information on this old highway. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per Polaron. State highways are notable as per Scott5114, however, it is a former state highway. It should be associated with Massachusetts Route 1A or U.S. Route 1 in Massachusetts, perhaps, as a bypass of US-1. When I stubbed this article it was from information in the article on the Central Artery, but I see that it has since been added to. --Tckma (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Whoever merges this needs to find sources. A 1964 map shows Route C1 following present Route 1A and US 1 through East Boston. A 1950 map (pre-Central Artery) concurs, and shows the route west of downtown. I see that Polaron has already corrected it; thank you. Maybe a merge with Massachusetts Route 1A would make sense? --NE2 19:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Instead of merging with Massachusetts Route 1A or U.S. Route 1 in Massachusetts, there is also the possibility of creating a new article such as Massachusetts City Routes and including it there with route descriptions of other C routes prior to 1971. Someone with good sources could start that article and it would certainly satisfy WP:N as a road history. Sswonk (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to U.S. Route 1 in Massachusetts#Route_C1--Rumping (talk) 11:17, 11 September 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.