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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Texas State Highway Loop 473[edit]

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

Nominating for deletion as I am unable to establish notability. Neither Notability (geographic features) nor Notability (highways) says anything about loops. I believe it is non notable but a consensus should be established. Mr RD 19:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Contrary to the nomination, WP:HIGHWAYS states "Secondary state highways... that are part of a statewide system... are generably notable." As these routes are numbered and maintained by TxDOT, they fall under the purview of this guideline. If articles on short Texas State Loops and Spurs should be merged into a list, then that is a discussion for a venue other than AfD. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—as Kinu points out, this is a secondary highway. In fact, Texas has several systems that would qualify, and the Loops are just one of them. Imzadi 1979 → 01:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous !votes. Loops are integral parts of highway systems and frequently have more traffic than the routes they are bypassing.--Oakshade (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above arguments. Merge into a list would also be a viable option. VMS Mosaic (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as loops in Texas, along with spurs which TxDOT regards as their equal brethren, belong to many different functional classes, serve very different purposes, and often access historic or scenic destinations.
- All three loops under current discussions in Afd are important urban roadways in the Wichita Falls area that have heavy traffic. Many have histories that add to improving the articles about the routes they previously conveyed. This is typical of many urban "secondaries", many of which are either freeways, partly freeways, carry through freight trucking by legal requirement, or even represent inner loops predating Interstate loops in an era before suburban sprawl such as Loop 12 in Dallas.
- Not all former portions of US 66 are I-40 business loops. Many still have state loop designations. These routes are part of the WP:USRD goal this year of improving all articles dealing with this historic highway.
- Even in rural areas, many routes are of significance to tourists and history buffs. Spur 95 takes you to Gonzales Battlefield where the Texas Revolution began in 1835. Spur 78, built in the 1930s in the Davis Mountains, was instrumental in building McDonald Observatory, has the highest elevation of any road in the state, and remains a major draw to tourists visiting the national and state parks in the Trans-Pecos region.
- There already are list articles for loops, spurs, and even former loops. However, the tabular format of these lists cannot provide any encyclopedic information about these roads to travelers, merely interested readers, and certainly not to anyone trying to improve articles related to these roads. Fortguy (talk) 08:58, 2 September 2014 (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.