Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Route 309A (Florida)

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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Route 309A (Florida)

This article is about a road that does not seem to exist and is of no notable importance. Just because there are other non-notable articles like this in Wikipedia should not be a justification. Those non-notable articles should also be deleted. It can be included in a list and this information can be merged into a list but it does not justify its own standalone article. The real question is: Was this particular road notable? --- Skapur 03:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a seemingly non-existant road. Current consensus on Wikipedia clearly maintains that any highwya that an American state has bothered to number as part of its state highway system is worthy of inclusion, but I'm not convinced that this road actually exists. There is a Route 309 that connects the cities mentioned in the article, but aparently no 309A. I will gladly switch to keep if I am shown to be wrong, however. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 12:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This road is now County Road 308B (as shown on a 1997 DeLorme atlas; I may also have a photo of the signage on southbound US 17); it was State Road 308B until the mass decommissioning of the 1980s. I have an FDOT Putnam County map that says it was renumbered in 1971, and a 1965 Rand McNally atlas that shows it as 309A. So it is verifiable.

On the other hand, this article is badly named and rather useless, and should be a redirect to one of State Road 308B (Florida), County Road 308B (Florida) or County Road 308B (Putnam County, Florida). So I have no opinion on whether this particular article should remain, but no precedent would be set by its deletion. --SPUI (T - C) 19:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all state and provincial highways. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But is it one? --- Skapur 22:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - We keep ones that are no longer. Example: California State Route 30. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - But there is real verifiable content on the California State Route 30 road and was obviously a notable road. The Florida Route 309A article has information for a list of routes, not for an article. It can always be created when there is real content. --- Skapur 23:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Also it is part of WP:FLSH. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wikipedia articles can not be used as a verifiable source --- Skapur 03:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        And yes, the article can be expanded too. With a routebox. Furthermore, I would disagree with the above statement. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not convinced that former highways of limited statewide importance, especially when the number was removed 30 years ago (if it existed at all), are notable. However, all current state/provincial numbered highways are. Kirjtc2 03:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Copied from the talk page: "I disagree with the proposed deletion. Although the article needs to be cleaned up, expanded, and categorized, there is ample precedent that routes numbered on a statewide system are noteworthy, and there are other articles on routes by discontinued numbers. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to follow the AfD procedure. Thank you. Doctor Whom 16:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)" --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Shell ^babelfish 21:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expand or speedy delete 1 line article (non-expandable) equals vanity. User:Yy-bo 14:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Let's provide some history here on this road, shall we? --Dennis The TIger 16:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has been on AfD for over a week and no significant improvements to it have been made. --Metropolitan90 17:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, precedent seems to be there for discontinued roads (although as a style point maybe a state-by-state list article would be better). --Dhartung | Talk 18:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Name change, old name not notable.-Kmaguir1 20:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on SPUI's comments. Gazpacho 21:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per SPUI. — CharlotteWebb 17:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above for historical purposes. RFerreira 19:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SPUI's comments. I'm surprised by the editors who said "keep per SPUI", since SPUI made no effort to keep, and if SPUI's comment were to be counted as a "vote", it would be as a redirect to an article that does not exist yet. Lacking that article, this one-liner should be deleted, as it has no historical purpose. -- NORTH ^talk 05:18, 8 September 2006 (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.