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--JForget 00:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Interstate Highways[edit]

Proposed Interstate Highways (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I think this article should be deleted, after any appropriate information is merged somewhere. It currently contains information about 7 "proposed" interstate highways. I believe this falls under the category WP:CBALL. 5 out of the 7 "proposed" highways have individual articles anyways. Those may also be crystal-ball articles, but I haven't checked them. Rjd0060 14:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: No crystal balling. Interstates listed are referenced and several are mandated by federal legislation. Many are under construction now. Only three have their own [interstate] articles. Article provides a good place for coverage instead of creating stub articles on each Interstate. -Fnlayson 14:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was incorrect, as were you. 4 have their own articles:

• Interstate 3
• Interstate 14
• Interstate 22
• U.S. Route 41 in Wisconsin (which is not specifically about
  the proposed one, although it is mentioned).

- Rjd0060 14:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak keep - While I see the rationale behind the AfD (seemingly fortune-telling in nature), most, if not all, are backed up with legit sources, which allow speculation if those sources themselves speculate. However, I think an article should be created for the ones that do not have an article as of yet, granted they have the sources to back up the statements; then, instead of a page with short blurbs, it could be a list and would then be in a perfectly acceptable format. EaglesFanInTampa 14:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good points. The article was like a list originally. List articles can more easily fill up with speculation and unsourced content. -Fnlayson 14:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then if we decide to create articles and list this one, why can't we bar the speculation like any other list. I mean, all we need is something like List of state routes in Delaware to cover this type of info. Or, we could go as far as something like List of county roads in Pinellas County, Florida, but sub the start/end points with any known projected termini and any estimated distances (all sourced, of course). In either case, it's keeping a running tally of the proposed IH's but losing the crap associated with its current form. EaglesFanInTampa 15:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd be OK a tabular list like that. Although I'd prefer paragraph form in this case as there are not many items. I think lists are generally harder to "police" since they are easier for people to add to like trivia sections. -Fnlayson 15:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Unlike most things that are suggested, proposals for interstate highways are the product of a lot of study, planning, lobbying and politiciking that goes on in the United States Congress. Even if these don't come into existence right away, the campaign for a particular highway doesn't completely cease. In this case, these are proposals that have made it to debate. Mandsford 20:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep As the title says, these highways are proposed; there is no one hypothesizing that they may be proposed, they have already been proposed, and adequate reliable and verifiable sources have been provided to demonstrate notability. Yet another example of a case where WP:CRYSTAL has been misinterpreted. For that matter, keeping them in an article with the word "proposed" eliminates the knee jerk cries of WP:CRYSTAL violations that would invariably erupt if standalone articles were to be created. Alansohn 05:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; this is not crystal balling, as these proposals have been made by state or federal governmental bodies of varying types, and either are under development or under serious study. --Mhking 05:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mhking. —Scott5114↗ 07:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The law has been passed that proposes several of these. There are sources that verify them master son^{T - C} 09:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mhking --John 15:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• While some of the Interstates covered in this article have articles, they are often very stubby and only contain one or two sources, both of which are reliable. This page exists to give a summary style approach to this topic—fully backed up by reliable sources, such as the law that authorizes construction, and newspapers. Content that is not backed up by reliable sources are removed almost immediately. That said, I say to keep this article. O₂ (息 • 吹) 19:59, 11 October 2007 (GMT)
• Keep per Alansohn ----DanTD 23:55, 11 October 2007 (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.