Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of abandoned highways in the United States

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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of abandoned highways in the United States

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The scope of this new article is untenable for several reasons. There would be literally thousands of examples that need to be added. I pass three segments of abandoned highway on my daily commute each morning, and that's just in the span of a few miles on one single highway.

The second is an issue of verifiability and notability. We can verify the existence of abandoned highway segments on some maps, which is what has been done in most cases here, but have third-party sources, reliable sources, taken note of these things? Most of the various web pages cited here are self-published, so they don't count for that standard. Without "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject", and for that maps don't count as "significant coverage", this fails the basic notability test. Imzadi 1979 → 12:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do news articles, local or national, count as reliable third-party sources? Some of the entries (e.g. I-90 exit 66 in Rapid City, SD) are linked to news articles regarding their closure. I'm guessing it depends on the news source as well, but any local news group run by one of the larger national groups (like Fox) should count as a reliable source. Xninetynine (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)X99[reply]

I am adding to this nomination the following related page because the same reasons and issues apply; For this one it is its second nomination and the first one is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unused highways in the United States.

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

UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The list being too long is not a good reason for not having the list as an article - instead it can be dealt with via clean-up on the page. Notability is more the issue, I see no independent, reliable sources listing abandoned highways in the United States. As such WP:GNG is failed. FOARP (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you say that there are too many things to add, they could be ranked by importance. Important- this entire four mile section of highway used to go a different direction. Unimportant- there used to be an exit ramp here leading to a nameless county road. Of course, there would be more criteria to rank importance, but for shortening the number of entries needed to be added, it's a start. As for reliable sources, slabs of concrete visible by satellite or the naked eye seem like they would count as a reliable source. If adding map coordinates to every entry would help, I'll work on that. Xninetynine (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)X99[reply]
- @Xninetynine: yes, we can verify that something exists. However, the test for whether or not we have an article isn't if we can verify the existence of a thing, but rather if there is "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". Otherwise my driveway, which very much exists, would have an article. We don't need coordinates; we need sources specifically discussing the topic of abandoned highways. Outside of the Abandoned Pennsylvania Turnpike, I just don't find sources discussing this topic outside of roadgeek websites that can't be used because they're self-published. Imzadi 1979 → 15:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you want a proven reason why each piece is abandoned? Also, your driveway isn't abandoned. It might be empty, but it's still used. In the meantime, the list has been updated. All current entries correspond to national or state highways. Xninetynine (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)X99[reply]
  - Most of the list entries have reasons for abandonment in their respective descriptions. Some don't, so I will either remove those or find valid reasons. Xninetynine (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)X99[reply]
    - The issue here is not the references for each item, the issue is that the topic of listing abandoned highways per se has no reliable sources indicating notability: basically, I'm looking for reliable sources also including lists of abandoned highways to show that its a notable subject. If you can show that, then I'd vote keep. FOARP (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - @FOARP: does this work? It is a worldwide list, but a list nonetheless. Xninetynine (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)X99[reply]
        Considering that's self-published, essentially a blog posting, no, it doesn't quite work for notability purposes. Imzadi 1979 → 00:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not just a blog post, it's a showcase of a Flickr page with over a thousand pictures of abandoned roads on it. People are interested in this stuff. That should be a reason to keep it. Xninetynine (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)X99[reply]
        Your first sentence proves my point. The source doesn't meet WP:RS requirements. Imzadi 1979 → 01:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        So Flickr isn't a reliable source? Xninetynine (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)X99[reply]
        No, it isn't. Flickr itself isn't a source, nor is YouTube or Twitter. Those sites republish the material of others, so everything there, by definition, is self-published. (There are some exceptions, but they don't apply in this case.) Imzadi 1979 → 00:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        What about news sources, local or national? Would news articles on why the roads were closed count as reliable sources? Xninetynine (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)X99[reply]
        Yes, but only for the specific facts on the specific roads. You'd still need some sources about the concept in general. Without something on the concept, the list isn't notable. (Also, please indent your comments using only asterisks; doing something else breaks the bulleted list.) Imzadi 1979 → 01:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as semi-nominator. WP:NOT implies WP should not have lists of things, if none of the listed things are individually notable. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I could support the deletion of the other list as well, but perhaps this discussion should remain focused on the original article, and we can apply any results here to the other list, and its sub-lists afterwards. Imzadi 1979 → 22:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This list could easily become an unwieldy nest of WP:OR and WP:SPS violations. Sounder Bruce 01:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat separate argument: since when does the word "unused" mean "never used before" rather than "not used at the current time"? This is what started this whole thing: back in May when half the List of unused highways in the United States page was removed for being abandoned roads, rather than never-used roads. That issue (the real definition of unused) should be figured out first, and the pages fixed accordingly. Xninetynine (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)X99[reply]
Delete both. If the "unused" portions of each highway are worth mentioning at all, which I don't think they are, they should be listed on each highway's respective article. At best, they are WP:TRIVIA. –Fredddie™ 18:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, the articles should stay up for at least a few months, long enough to move all unused and abandoned sections to their respective road pages. Xninetynine (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)X99[reply]

With the small number of votes, and only one of them Keep, it looks like the page will be deleted. However, can it be moved temporarily into draft space so the listings can be moved to their respective road pages before they are fully deleted? Xninetynine (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)X99[reply]
No. Copy the article content off-wiki if you want to try using it in the future. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - first, there are sub-pages such as List of unused highways in Florida that should have the same fate; I'm not sure if they should be bundled (as part of a re-list) or simply nominated after this is closed. The current scope (which attempts to be a list of every closed/reconstructed off-ramp in the United States) is unmanageable. Without a reasonable suggestion for how to improve the scope, this will be deleted. If an editor wants to maintain this in userspace to add the material to other articles where appropriate (such as articles on the closed highways where those exist) I think that would be fine. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Power~enwiki: How do I move the pages to userspace? (I kinda just started out here.) Xninetynine (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)X99[reply]
  - Hopefully the closing admin will do it for you. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. There is no independent coverage to show if the lists are important. Lorstaking (talk) 06:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Ultimately, there is no evidence of significance or notability. I agree that we should try to AfD ones like List of unused highways in Florida after the conclusion of this one. Spiderone 10:26, 16 December 2018 (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.