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.
Lacks even a single independent reliable source and it would need multiple to be notable. Can't find any in an offsite search either. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:GEOROAD, which is part of the notability guideline, “International road networks (such as the International E-road network), Interstate, national, state and provincial highways are typically notable.” The precedent set at WP:USRD/P has illustrated this notability multiple times. In addition, per WP:5P, Wikipedia is a gazetteer, which would include geographical features such as roads. State highways are notable enough for an article as the state DOT deems the road important enough for automobile transportation by maintaining it and assigning it a number. State highways are mentioned in maps by both the DOT and third-party map companies such as Rand McNally and are often mentioned in news sources, some archives of which are not readily accessible to editors. Dough4872 19:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"typically notable" =/= automatically notable, if the sources exist please present them. WP:5P does not say that Wikipedia is a gazetteer, it says we have features of a gazetteer. Please do not misrepresent one of out core pillars. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep State highways are generally considered notable based on GEOROAD and precendence as Dough points out. Presidentmantalk · contribs (Talkback) 22:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are misrepresenting GEOROAD, it does not say that they are generally considered notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOROAD and the nominator's drive-by nominations of similar articles. --Rschen7754 01:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks any significant sources establishing notability. Wikipedia having features of a gazetteer (not that it "is" one) still does not mean that any geographic place or stretch of asphalt inherently must have a stand-alone article. Wikipedia:Notability_(geographic_features)#Sourcesexplicitly says that maps are excluded from establishing notability, so the above statement about being marked on them is useless. GEOROAD says that state highways may be "typically notable", NOT that they are inherently notable and exempt from needing substantive sources. Reywas92Talk 02:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of state routes in Ohio. While there is not sufficient coverage to support a standalone article, the route is a valid search term and should be retained as a redirect to the appropriate list article. The keep votes are simply "keep it because we say it's notable" rather than any real evidence this route meets GNG. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GEOROAD; the general consensus is that state highways are notable. If that guideline should be changed, then AfD isn't the right venue to do so. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
International road networks (such as the International E-road network), Interstate, national, state and provincial highways are typically notable.Elli (talk | contribs) 22:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Typically notable =/= "general consensus is that state highways are notable" completely different in fact. Typically means that some of the time (as here) they aren't notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The general consensus at previous AfDs has been to interpret GEOROAD as primary secondary highways being presumed notable. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That interpretation is incorrect, anyone who has made such an argument has competence issues and should not be contributing to AfD. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable people can disagree as to the interpretation of something, especially on Wikipedia, where what is written in policies and guidelines often trails what de facto consensus is. Attacking anyone who disagrees with you as having competence issues is not constructive. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable people can disagree, but they aren't allowed to tell bald faced lies about it... The AGF alternative to them telling lies is them having a competence issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a fan of presumptive notability, but going as far as anyone who has made such an argument has competence issues and should not be contributing to AfD is not helpful. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Dough4872 at this and the other similarly-nominated state highway articles: State highways are notable enough for an article as the state DOT deems the road important enough for automobile transportation by maintaining it and assigning it a number. Per WP:5P, Wikipedia contains features of a gazetteer, and an article containing textual information about a roadway deemed of importance on the highest subnational level is such a feature. Quoting WP:ROADOUTCOMES: Most numbered roadways are acceptable if they can be described beyond the route itself. It is customary for this and other articles supported by WP:USRD to indicate information about not only the route itself (e.g., major intersections), but also its history and upkeep. This information can be compiled not only from primary sources (e.g., the respective state's transportation authority), but also from secondary sources (e.g., coverage from newspapers). I concede that some articles about highways do not presently contain this information, and that sourcing for the early history of a highway may be somewhat difficult to find for a highway designated in the 1930s. However, "difficult" is not "impossible", as has been shown by the providing of relevant sources during the course of the current discussion related to MN 91. Such issues are WP:SURMOUNTABLE and are not reasons for deletion, as noted at the discussion of many similar articles that have been kept as listed at WP:USRD/P. --Kinut/c 01:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is insane: "Most numbered roadways are acceptable if they can be described beyond the route itself." No part of this article is anything beyond the route. You can say "oh but there's a history section." No, someone just took the maps and saw that on an earlier dated map the route was a certain length, and in a later dated map, the route was longer. Again, without non-map sources, this is unacceptable. Reywas92Talk 14:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article now contains information about the route's designation as a memorial highway and a recent construction project. There are also other sources which are paywalled. I will attempt to expand the content further. --Kinut/c 20:15, 25 October 2022 (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.