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 no consensus. The contention in this AfD dealt with whether the article passes the WP:GNG and whether it, by existing, meets the requirements of our current accepted standards. The inital comments about Google Maps being a enough to pass as a secondary source were discounted as weak, as were arguments consisting simply 'per above'. While I am leaning towards a deletion on the point of sufficient sourcing, the major sticking point lies with the argument that state routes are notable by default. Given the mixed responses in this AfD, it would be innapropriate to swim against the status quo. Whether state routes are notable by default is a topic for the Wikiproject, and much more examined discussion encompassing all articles needs to take place. As such, no consensus reflects the conflict between the lack of sources and the accepted practice currently in place. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Route 64 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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

Does not meet our criteria for inclusion. Notability is defined as, "... significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject ...". I question the independence of a government discussing its own roads. That is, how is the New Jersey Department of Transportation considered independent of the roads located in its own state? –blurpeace ^(talk) 11:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I don't see anything in there that tells me why this is a notable road. iMatthew ^talk at 11:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no coverage in reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject as required by WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete. It's a pretty interesting article, and how many state highways do you know of are just a bridge. In addition, this article has been nominated as one of those Engineering Good Articles. I think you're being a little too harsh. Also, and more importantly, I think it's good to have entries for roads in here so that if one is taking a trip, one can find information about stuff along the way. 71.255.102.198 (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Governments talking about their own roads are often the major source of information about the engineering and construction of those roads, aside from newspaper articles, many of which might be old, etc. Just because it's one-sided / POV information doesn't mean it's not necessarily reliable. Besides, if we throw this article out, then we might as well throw out articles on Adam and Eve and Noah, both of which ultimately derive from a single POV source (the Bible) as well. But it's appropriate to fish for secondary sources. — Rickyrab | Talk 12:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Illogical argument. WP:GNG requires secondary sources; it isn't a question of deleting because the sources are biased. The Adam and Eve example is a poor one; how many journal articles have been written about Adam and Eve? How many books? How many entries in other encyclopaedias, how many television programs, how many radio programs? Ironholds (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • So what would you recommend to someone wanting to find out more about New Jersey highways and roads such as 64? — Rickyrab | Talk 13:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Google maps? ;p. I don't care how useful an article is, if it can't fulfil our very, very basic standards of notability it isn't worth including. You'd do well to read this. Ironholds (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory (nor is it an altas,71.255.102.198 ), this road does not meet the standards for notability. (see WP:N) Markb (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Is there a Wikidirectory or Wikiatlas out there to put this article on? — Rickyrab | Talk 12:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Yellowikis"? Maybe "Wikidirectory" would've been a better name for that site. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This article is well written and would be viable with more references other than from NJ DOT. It is also featured on the main page in the "did you know" section--T1980 (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  none of those are valid keep reasons. It would indeed be viable with more references - such references don't exist. If you can provide references that allow the article to pass WP:GNG, do so. Ironholds (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Where are the reliable secondary sources? — Rickyrab | Talk 13:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Query what criteria make a road notable? Saga City (talk) 13:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As for secondary sources I would imagine that this appears in a number of maps and atlases published independently of the state - it would seem silly to quote them all. Is anyone suggesting that this is a hoax? Saga City (talk) 13:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:GNG for the inclusion guidelines. Nope, nobody says this is a hoax; a mention in an atlas doesn't pass the guideline, though; firstly it isn't "significant" coverage, secondly such atlases cover every road, including tiny twisty little dead end lanes; nobody would suggest that articles on those are notable. Ironholds (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good point do the sources have to be literary ones? — Rickyrab | Talk 13:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No. Have you read WP:GNG? Ironholds (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Google Maps and Windows Live would arguably satisfy GNG... — Rickyrab | Talk 13:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Windows live? Google maps falls foul of the same thing I've explained below about atlases.Ironholds (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was thinking of Windows Live Local, which is essentially similar to Google Maps. It probably goes under a different name those days. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see how a mention in an atlas doesn't satisfy the guidelines. Care to explain? — Rickyrab | Talk 13:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Firstly, WP:GNG requires "significant" coverage; a picture of the road in relation to other roads doesn't provide that. Secondly, every road is covered by an atlas. How does an atlas demonstrate the notability of this road when it provides the same coverage of Hicksville Lane, Tennessee, a dead-end leading to a wooden shack and an outhouse? Ironholds (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's still the well-written article objection I have to deletion. If it provides a useful source of information, it should be put somewhere. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hell no; that's not even a valid objection. I can write an incredibly well-written article about myself, doesn't mean we need to include it. Take a read through Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, particularly "I like it" "It's useful" "it's interesting".
      • I don't necessarily mean keeping it on Wikipedia; it could be as useful off-wiki and linked. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ironholds (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • On the other hand, if the road can be shown by the map to be a primary connector between several population centers or notable areas by that atlas, one can presume the road to be notable to some extent. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope. There isn't a specific road notability guideline; the guideline for roads is WP:GNG. If you can fulfil that requirement, do so. If you can't, stop coming up with silly keep reasons. Ironholds (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then we might as well take this argument to GNG, as atlases are indeed reliable secondary sources. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Never said they weren't. Reliable, yes. Secondary, yes. Significant coverage, no. Ironholds (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • See discussion page of GNG — Rickyrab | Talk 13:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your edit there was reverted, and didn't solve the problem anyway. Atlases are reliable sources in most situations, but they have not given this road significant coverage, which is required by WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • • We'll see what consensus says about the edit to GNG. As for "significant coverage", we'd need to look it up in the atlases to see whether it's a notable road or not, under my criteria. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Yes, but your criteria have no standing in guideline or policy, you just inserted them. That's like trying to win a game of chess by changing the rules. Under the notability guideline as currently accepted, a brief mention of a road, along with every other road, is not "significant coverage". Please either a) come up with a decent argument or b) stop trying to make things up in an attempt to get this kept. Ironholds (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Interestingly enough, Route 64 appears to fail notability even under my criteria. — Rickyrab | Talk 14:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Having been designated a State highway in 1938 and constructed in 1939, very few thrid-party sources will be available online. State expenditure and construction like this would have certainly generated coverage at the time. That such coverage is not yet cited in the article says nothing about its lack of existance. Searching with the links provided will certainly not help either, as newspaper coverage would discuss the construction of a bridge over the Pennsylvania Railroad right-of-way and built under an old route number designation. Offline sources are bound to exist for this, and just need to be found. Deletion would be counter-productive when the article would be easily verified and kept with a trip to a library. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 13:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP. This is a well-written article about a unique road (it is so short) that is adequately referenced with a variety of legitimate sources. It satisfies all Wikipedia policy and guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. In particular, it complies with WP:MOS and WP:N. For notability, it has significant coverage and reliable sources that are presumed to be independent of the subject. Further, it passed WP:DYK, whose inline citation criterion implicitly requires notability. Truthanado (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Please show me where these sources are in the article that pass WP:GNG? Ironholds (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd like to know what sources there are myself. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here are the WP:GNG criteria and how the article satisfies each:

1. significant coverage - no original research is involved; there are multiple primary and secondary sources
2. reliable - Rutgers University is considered reliable; it is used twice; NJDOT is also considered reliable
3. sources - Rutgers University and the several atlases/maps cited are secondary sources
4. independent of the subject - Acknowledging that NJDOT may not be independent, Rutgers University is independent; it is neither on the road nor does it have anything to do with its maintenance. And the USDOT is clearly independent.
5. presumed- "substantive coverage in reliable sources [discussed above] establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion"

Isn't it ironic that this simple article about a road has generated more discussion in a few hours than the more wide-ranging discussions about date usage and the deprecation of future templates? Interesting, isn't it? Truthanado (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the multiple secondary sources (reliable, third-party sourced independent of the subject, et al) must demonstrate significant coverage. "everything puts together adds up to a couple of paragraphs" isn't significant coverage. Note that each secondary source must show "significant coverage"; the primary ones don't come into this. Ironholds (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Rutgers is probably quasi-independent, seeing as it's a state school. But there's a tradition of independent analysis by tenured professors. — Rickyrab | Talk 14:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what I write. Independence is not in question; significant coverage is. Ironholds (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which boils down to what is meant by significant. — Rickyrab | Talk 14:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. So why did you bring up whether or not Rutgers is quasi-independent? Ironholds (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to clarify someone else's point about whether Rutgers was an independent source, which is another requirement of CNG. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I submit that a total of 9 references covering 6 different organizations and a span of 71 years is significant coverage. If not, then we must all consider deleting 90% of Wikipedia articles because many of them have significantly less coverage than this article does. Truthanado (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't getting it. The multiple independent, secondary, third-party, reliable sources required under WP:GNG must each show "significant coverage". WP:GNG requires everything in one source (or two sources, obviously); it isn't a case of pick and mix where you can add coverage by primary sources into the fray. Ironholds (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where does CNG say that the reliable sources must each show significant coverage? Can you point to that requirement? — Rickyrab | Talk 17:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The text itself and the footnote ("The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial.", for example) is written in such a way as to imply that both sources must give "significant" coverage. Even taking that away and applying significant coverage on all the secondary sources collectively it still doesn't pass. Ironholds (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word "each" doesn't even appear anywhere in Wikipedia:Notability. I don't know where that requirement would come from. It certainly is not any interpretation I have ever heard in various other notability discussions I have been involved in. I guess we will just have to have our different opinions. Further attempts at discussion are fruitless. Truthanado (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lets go without "each" for now, then. Explain how the secondary sources in the article add up to "significant coverage". Ironholds (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Visit the library before deciding keep or delete. I'm neither for keeping this on Wikipedia nor for deleting this from Wikipedia. I do, however, advise caution before rushing to delete something for lack of secondary sources. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That's rather a shift in attitude. you don't want to keep it or delete it? And are you personally volunteering to trawl the library? Ironholds (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wonder if this road has any park-and-rides on it. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not seeing any evidence of notability. Roads are not included by default, and, even if they were, if this qualified, I think my road would. It's older, and there was some coverage around the time it got tarmaced... Unless we have some reliable sources discussing this, mindless assertions that the road is notable or the article is useful count for nothing. J Milburn (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternatively, a redirect to State highways in New Jersey may be appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need an off wiki directory of roads and infrastructure that discusses their history and evolution... that's my feeling at the moment. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikia is thataway. Ironholds (talk) 13:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Found a wiki that might be useful if people work on it: Transportation Wiki — Rickyrab | Talk 14:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just out of curiosity, what road is "your road"? — Rickyrab | Talk 13:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I live here, so that should give you an idea of how unimportant it is. Check the historical map, it's labelled. J Milburn (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of significant 3rd party source coverage. Please inform me if this situation changes. Majorly talk 14:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong comment Blurpeace, I don't see how the your deletion rationale relates specifically to this article. Is this the only road article on all of Wikipedia which has no secondary sources? Would you be willing to take on a mass AfD of all such road articles, if more could be found? -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Mass AfDs in a situation like this are problematic. Most mass AfDs are for things which, as a rule, should not be considered notable; every episode of a 15-minute youtube show, say. Articles like this ideally require individual review and individual discussion as to notability, and I feel a mass AfD would dissolve into chaos. Ironholds (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Ironholds has essentially stated what I was going to. For now, this should be handled on a case-by-case basis. A request for comments may be necessary in the future. –blurpeace ^(talk) 14:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  View this as an attempt to break the ice on what I, and other editors interpret as non-notable articles. –blurpeace ^(talk) 14:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge salvagable content and redirect to State highways in New Jersey per Milburn, or keep as separate article if enough sources can be found. (BTW, I just came into this debate because the article was at the Did you know section of the Main Page.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 17:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Good idea. (Not sure if enough sources can be found. It may be historically notable, but it doesn't look geographically notable.) — Rickyrab | Talk 17:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This nomination made me laugh a lot. It is really a grandiose mockery when article which passed DYK process, and is featured on the main page is nominated for deletion. Strong keep this article, as it is a part of a large system covering all "state roads". - Darwinek (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD is far more rigorous than DYK. That's like saying "It is really a grandiose mockery when article which passed the new page patrol process is later tagged as lacking sources", and using that as a justification to remove a template warning about the lack of sources. How about we focus on whether the article actually meets our criteria- what makes you think the fact that this is a state road makes it worth covering? It seems fairly clear that there aren't any reliable sources that agree with you... J Milburn (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Darwinek, would you mind making an argument based on ooh, guidelines and policy? Obviously you must have such an argument - the hilarious and mocking nomination can make one, so I'm sure a user of your calibre can think of something valid. Ironholds (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I find it surprising that the roads wikiproject members haven't trooped in to declare that every numbered road is notable, as in past discussions of very short numbered roads. Edison (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, so far most of us brainless zombies that edit road articles are voting merge. Sorry to disappoint you by breaking your homogeneous stereotype. =-) Dave (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete It is verifiable, but apparently not notable, due to the lack of reliable secondary sources with significant coverage. Wikipedia is not a directory nor a map nor a road atlas. Edison (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Smerge(selectively merge) Trim to avoid giving this itty bitty piece of the road undue weight in the article. Per the arguments of NE2. Edison (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• SPEEDY STRONG SUPER KEEP - Bad faith nom, you might as well have done what that lowlife did and nominate Wii for deletion. --Morzabeta (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• User blocked indef, indented. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Current standards allow for articles on individual state highways. Until and unless this changes, nominating a single page is not an appropriate course of action. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not the current standard. Please see WP:USRD/NT. The current standard typically results in *most* state highways getting individual articles, but not all. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Juliancolton, and also because the argument that publications by the government are somehow not reliable just because they are about a public piece of infrastructure like this is a terrible argument: the government has no reason to promote, exaggerate, or fabricate information about a road the way that a company would have about its product. Mangojuice^talk 19:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Read the arguments. Nobody has ever claimed they're not reliable, we're claiming that they don't pass WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  At the heart of which is the notion that government information is somehow not reliable or independent. So yes, it is quite relevant. Read the nomination, it's right there. Mangojuice^talk 00:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Please, stop twisting our words. I have never brought in to question whether the NJDOT is reliable. I am questioning the independence of the source from the subject matter. How is a government discussing its own roads a proof of notability? –blurpeace ^(talk) 01:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  No point, WP:GNG shouldn't be used on things of this nature anyway. Juliancolton's argument is really the most important one. What I'm saying is that the government sources are perfectly usable and provide verifiability which is really all we need; WP:N does not apply to everything blindly. Mangojuice^talk 01:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to County Route 571 (New Jersey), which is the route's signed designation. NJ 64 was built as a short relocation of County Route 7, which later became part of the larger CR 571. It's not too important on its own, but as part of CR 571 it certainly is important enough to be mentioned. --NE2 19:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per NE2. --LJ (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per NE2 Dave (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per NE2. Though its a shame that a GA has to be merged into another article. But there is a lack of non-primary sources, so I say merge. Admrboltz (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote to Keep after significant reworking to history section. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into County Route 571 (New Jersey) per points raised by NE2. As the route is essentially part of another route with an article, it makes since that the article could give substantial coverage to this part of the road and its unique designation. I fully agree with Jiliancolton that consensus has not changed regarding the notability of state highways (I guess I should note that I would support a "keep" over a "delete" if "merge" is shot down), it makes more sense to include this stretch of road the article for the longer route. youngamerican (wtf?) 20:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I should add that most of the article should be merged as lose as little as possible of this article, especially as updated. youngamerican (wtf?) 11:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or at least Merge I can't see how this article fails any policies (it would be a very unusual directory that was anything like this article) so the only issue here is notability. If there is not enough verifiable material to write an independent article then per the editing policy the content should be preserved by merging to another article such as suggested by NE2 so long as the verifiable content is not lost. Davewild (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Changed to just be keep as I think the additions since my comment make the case for keeping stronger and a merge is no longer appropriate. Davewild (talk) 07:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's just a dang road. Second choice merge. Stifle (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a poor reason to delete if ever I saw one. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid argument. Majorly talk 21:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above Gill Giller Gillerger (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  What above? Thus far, all people opposing the deletion have been refuted. –blurpeace ^(talk)

• But that doesn't necessarily mean the arguments are no longer valid. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The definition of refute is, "to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous". If the argument has been proven wrong, it is no longer valid. –blurpeace ^(talk) 00:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (and note that I don't agree with either of you). I'm pretty sure that Julian knows what the word "refute" means. Some of the arguments have been contested to varying levels of success, but I would not go as far as to say "all...have been refuted." I'm sure that the closing admin will take all opinions into account and make a thoughtful closure. youngamerican (wtf?) 11:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Juliancolton. Jeni ^(talk) 23:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, aside from the precedent that state highways are always notable, how could this possibly pass GA without the coverage required for notability? We indeed have plenty of coverage; there's no need to merge this to another article. Nyttend (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Even though it is just a bridge over the Amtrak Northeast Corridor, NJ 64 does have historical significance and can sustain its own article. If it is found by the majority that this article is not worthy of being on its own, then it should be merged into County Route 571 (New Jersey) as it serves as that route's bridge over the railroad line. Dough4872 (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per NE2.—JA10 Talk • Contribs 01:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The history is vastly improved and gives the article more notability.—JA10 Talk • Contribs 01:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because there is an accepted community consensus that highways maintained at a certain level are, as a class, good enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. This is similar to the situation for populated places where verification of their existence at any point in time is all that is needed to merit an individual article. Additionally, this is a well-developed, sourced article. Future decisions on whether to merge with another article or not should be left to the relevant WikiProject. --Polaron | Talk 02:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*How about topic ban my big ass and your problems will dissapear. - If you want problems solved, topic ban me.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 02:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • That is not an appropriate comment. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - On any other argument, I might be willing to say delete. However, a road does not have the ability to write an article, so, the nom does nothing for me. Anyway, it is standard for the roads project, and I think there would need to be a mass change before this article should be viewed as not notable. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - It is obvious that the original nom was made before the work was put in that brought it to a 'Did you know?'. MMetro (talk) 03:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, the article has changed little since the nomination. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I would say merge but apparently people believe that there is historic info. Merge Typically a <1 mile route gets merged at USRD. There's just not enough material that could be written about a 0.32 mile route. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: simply doesn't pass WP:GNG, and not surprising, because it's just a tiny road. RichsLaw (talk) 09:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a state route. --Son (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Please provide the policy or guideline stating that state routes are somehow exempt from WP:GNG

  Please read WP:USRD/NT; state routes typically are notable, but not all are notable for their own article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please revisit

• I spent evening looking up stuff for NJ 64, and valila! (yes I know this is spelled wrong). I found a number of good information, and I'd like this AFD extended so the article can be revisited.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 01:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Indeed you have added more info, but nothing that makes this road meet WP:GNG, maybe the bridge itself does? Markb (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If it does, and being the bridge has no interesting characteristics, it would be a bore, and have a very long name, because of that. Also, putting the route is basically that now, none of the designation stuff belongs in a bridge article.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 11:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• comment. Fair enough. After a little research, I see there is a essay on the notability of roads that is useful. Before anyone tries to make a distinction, a road is a highway, certainly in US law. Markb (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I want to add, is now that the NJ had made it clear they originally wanted to make NJ 64 a freeway, and for many decades after, it seems this may add to 64's clear notability. Length isn't everything.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 12:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. Length isn't everything, class isn't everything - in this case, WP:GNG is. I'd appreciate if you road enthusiasts could actually make arguments based on guidelines and policies rather than "stuff that makes sense in the Wikipedia inside my head". Ironholds (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely no consensus in this discussion and it is doubtful that further discussion would lead to anything but further differences of opinion. Therefore, per Wikipedia policy, I suggest this AfD discussion be closed and the article left as-is (i.e.-Keep, not delete), reason = no consensus reached. Truthanado (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is serving more than the purpose of debating a deletion. It has become a venue for discussion, thus I believe it should be left open until closure time. –blurpeace ^(talk) 02:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with blurpeace. While there is a pretty good chance that this will end up nc, this is a good discussion to have from time to time per WP:CCC. youngamerican (wtf?) 11:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I'm not sure whether or not a State Route in the USA is equivalent to a Motorway or an A Road in the UK, but either way it meets the notability threshold. Article is well sourced, and as it has passed through the GA process there should be no doubt that it should be kept. What next, nominating a FA for AfD? Mjroots (talk) 08:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability is not a criterion for good articles. The prose relies primarily on sources from the government that maintains the road. How does that prove its notability? –blurpeace ^(talk) 11:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If the government finds it fit to document these roads extensively, surely they must be somewhat notable, at least in their eyes. And in order for an article to pass GA, its sources must meet content criteria such as WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR; therefore, the fact that this article is a GA may be an indicator that it is sufficiently notable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In this case, it is not an indicator. The sources are reliable, but that does not necessarily mean they're independent of the subject. The NJDOT's mission statement is, "Improving Lives by Improving Transportation." Wouldn't you assume that documenting roads would one of their duties? –blurpeace ^(talk) 16:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this becoming a WP:PS issue - not an AFD thing :| - Anyway, dividing up all sources looks like this:

• 1, 9, 14 - NJ Department of Transportation
• 4, 7, 8, 10, 11 - NJ State Legislature and Governor Alfred Driscoll. Being the state legislature's job or reason is to legislate the roads, not detail and maintain them, this would not be a PS vio.
• 17, 18 - Rutgers University. Even though its published on the DOT site, and with the DOT in mind, the official publisher of this study would be Rutgers University, which falls under the same reasoning for the previous one:
• 2 - The United States Department of Transportation. This would be more of a secondary to the NJDOT, because the feds do not maintain NJ 64.
• 3, 5, 6, 12, 13 - Maps from several different organizations. (Not primary as none are from the state)
• 14 and 15 - News articles, obvious secondary source.

This is how it looks to me. You can disagree - but these are how it fall.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 16:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, remove, merge... whatever just no need for an article dedicated to this road. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because I am against any AfD for a single article with a rationale that could cover hundreds of similar articles. If future AfD's like this can be prevented by changing the notability policy, I would be in favor of that as well. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on this somewhat (since I previously wrote the same as only a "comment"), if this AfD closes as keep, I would be in favor of rewriting the policy to prevent future AfD's like this, and if it closes as delete or merge, then I would expect the delete voters here to be in favor of deleting many other road articles as well. But to have an AfD for just this one article leaves me confused and frustrated. I believe that sometimes an article that may not be notable by itself should be kept because it is part of a larger whole ... for an example of another such situation see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/May 2069 lunar eclipse. By itself, the May 2069 lunar eclipse article wasn't much, but deleting it would have crippled the usability of the other lunar eclipse articles, and the lunar eclipses taken as a whole are certainly notable.

Likewise, surely no one would call the US highway system non-notable. If this road article were taken as part of a group, I think it would considered as notable. This is why I object to the single-article AfD. If the article were shorter, I would be in favor of a merge, but I believe this article should stand alone because merging it (and articles like it) into larger pages would produce very long articles. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I was willing to support a merge untill I read the article. If you can write that much on a road that is only .32 miles long it says this road is unique. A lack of references would also argue for a merge, but clearly this is a well referenced article. How many GA class articles does anyone think deserve deletion? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you read the discussion? The article is based on primary sources. In theory, I could write an article on an actor solely on sources taken from his website, but that does not make him notable, does it? The good article assessment does not necessarily establish notability, but may be an indicator of it. –blurpeace ^(talk) 01:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and nothing is inheritably notable. I fail to see the discussion of this road in reliable, third-party sources; which is the basis of the notability guidelines which apply for all articles. Individual state routes can be notable, but not all are and this one doesn't appear to be. ThemFromSpace 03:14, 14 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.