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 Speedy keep after discussion with Seicer, in which we agreed that, in exchange for moving the article to list of unused highways and linking it to unused highway, I would drop my recommendation to delete. Thus, since no one is recommending a deletion, it can be speedily kept. NE2 05:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost ramp[edit]

Since the previous discussion two months ago, no one has given any reliable sources that define exactly what a "ghost ramp" is. I also don't believe it is useful to list every example, even if we could come up with a definition. --NE2 19:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Article provides a source for the definition. I think we all have better things to do than AfDs for an article with dozens of cites; this one is well above the minimum bar that's been established for articles. Tarinth 19:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AARoads is a personal website that does not qualify as a reliable source. --NE2 19:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Didn't we just go through this not long ago? Since the last AFD's closure, there have been noticeable improvements in the article per suggestions by NE2 and others. The last vote certaintly did not go towards consensus, I don't see how another vote several months later will be any different. Perhaps instead of selecting articles for deletion, you could improve on the article as it contains a wealth of information. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There have been no improvements in the most important thing - a reliable source for what a "ghost ramp" is. --NE2 20:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There have been improvements in the sourcing of materials from a variety of people. For instance, there is no need to source an aerial image if it clearly shows or demonstrates that an abandoned ramp or a disused ramp is visible and/or is photographed. Many have also been sourced, see Ghost ramp#References. Most were added after the last AFD failed and range from SCSA's web-site to others, including AARoads. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But without a reliable source for what a "ghost ramp" is, we can't have an article on "ghost ramps". --NE2 06:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Although ghits are low (about 1200), this seems to be a well documented article. I would, however, like to see a better initial definition (although the one there is ok). SkierRMH 20:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can't provide a better definition, or one at all, because there are no reliable sources that define it. --NE2 20:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Ghost ramps are a minor but noteworthy feature of modern roads. There is a ghost ramp in Manchester (UK) near UMIST and I am very familiar with it. Anthony Appleyard 20:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you know it's a "ghost ramp"? What reliable source can you cite? --NE2 20:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw it every weekday for many years riding to work, and often when walking between buildings at work. It is like article Ghost ramps describes. It is listed in the first entry in Ghost ramp#United Kingdom. Whether or not the name "ghost ramp" is common knowledge, the type of thing that it describes is common knowledge. Anthony Appleyard 21:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you don't know it's a "ghost ramp". Can you suggest somewhere to move this article to make it match our policies? --NE2 21:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know no other name for them. (The example near UMIST has in the past been called a "road to nowhere".) Anthony Appleyard 22:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • So essentially, despite an overwhelming consensus to keep and a willingness to improve the article (perhaps if more would improve instead of filing AFDs or complain...), you would rather delete outright? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 12:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't think the ((Original Research)) tagging of the page is event justified; the issue seems to be more about a complain regarding the quality of the source that is used, rather than whether it truly qualifies as OR. This is just another case where time spent in an AfD debate would be far better spent improving the article... Tarinth 15:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Ghost ramp is a phrase in common use. Regan123 20:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide a reliable source that says this. --NE2 20:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh please, you're trying to pull the straws here and striving to base your arguments on the last failed AFD. Placing another AFD so soon after, even after there have been marked improvements to the article, is asinine. You have also failed to improve the article as well; why not contribute and improve on the article, as others have, instead of slapping AFD after AFD?
    • And it is a common term. If you don't like these references, then perhaps nothing will satisfy you (see last AFD) [[1] [2] [3] [4] Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "keep and improve" only works once. Since no sources have been provided after two months I give advance notice that I will personally close this as delete unless sources are provided by the end of the five days. WP:V is core policy, as is WP:NOR, and WP:RS is not optional simply because it's a guideline not a hard policy. Source it or lose it, folks. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the article was simply about a neologism, I might be inclined to agree; but the article appears to be a well-sourced article documenting the phenomena. If the article was renamed to "Roads with Incomplete Ramps" I doubt we'd be having this discussion (in which case perhaps only a rename, followed by a Redirect, is in order). On a related note, are you seriously announcing that as closing-admin you'll delete an article even in a case where the overwhelming plurality of AfD commenters have presented well-reasoned arguments in favor of keep (please don't present 'AfD is not a vote', which I don't think is the case here--because that reason is not synonymous with 'AfD is a way for admins to disregard comments and make up their own mind'). Tarinth 01:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has two unsourced sentences about the causes of "ghost ramps" and a huge list of things that are supposedly "ghost ramps". --NE2 01:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It's an unsourced list with unsourced description about an unsourced concept. Which is why, if these deficiancies are not remedied, I will delete it, because WP:INTERESTING does not trump WP:V and WP:NOR. Guy (Help!) 11:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please refrain from making statements that you will delete this article. I find it more than a little intimidating. You can make your points sufficiently clear without saying stuff in this manner. To be honest, at this point, I would prefer you refrain from closing this page at all. Let another admin do it, whatever the decision. FrozenPurpleCube 15:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So essentially, despite an overwhelming consensus to keep and a willingness to improve the article (perhaps if more would improve instead of filing AFDs or complain...), you would rather delete outright? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Precisely that, yes. Consensus cannot override policy. I don't want people to have a nasty surprise, so I'm giving fair warning. It's been through this process before, and we left it to be sourced, but it still is not. We don't do original research on Wikipedia, and that's exactly what this article is right now. So: please go and fix it. Soon. Guy (Help!) 17:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's the thing, you're acting as if consensus is talking about overriding policy, to me, it seems like most people are arguing that this doesn't violate policy. I don't think this article expressly violates policy, any content that is objectionable can be removed. The principle itself isn't a problem, just the tone. As such, I'd say it's more a clean-up issue than a deletion one. Treating it the way you have is a tad heavy-handed. Try toning it down a little more. FrozenPurpleCube 20:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Well, I do think this phenomena exists, but I'm not sure it should be a full article, or if this is the right title. Might Abandoned roads or a subsection of ghost town be a better choice? BTW, I'm not sure an Admin should be making a statement of intent to delete before discussion has developed, even with the caveat. It would be much more appropriate to just say "Delete, lack of reliable sources" or some such. The wording chosen has a coercive feel to it that I do not feel is a good idea. FrozenPurpleCube 22:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Google for "ghost ramp" OR "ghost ramps" -wikipedia -wikimedia found 976 hits with a great variety of starts to their web addresses. This looks to me like that the phrase "ghost ramp" is widely known and used. It is nothing like a ghost town, and a ghost ramp usually does not mark a road built and then abandoned, but an abandoned plan to build a road. Anthony Appleyard 22:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I wouldn't say it's nothing like a ghost town, they are at least the same in that they are not use. At the least, I'd consider that there is enough in common that some linkage would be desirable. Whether the roads were abandoned, or just the plans to finish them doesn't matter to me, but I could also get behind unused roads if you think that might be better. FrozenPurpleCube 22:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Google results seem to show that the term "ghost ramp" may be fairly new but its use had spread via the internet etc before it was used as the nsame of a Wikipedia article. Anthony Appleyard 07:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may be so, but if the usage is still limited, it may not be the appropriate title for a Wikipedia article. yet. FrozenPurpleCube 15:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the topic seems notable enough and the article is well-sourced. TSO1D 00:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no reliable source for the most important thing - what exactly a "ghost ramp" is. --NE2 00:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — the data provided would be tough to fit into another topic. While many people are entering data based on what they see with their own eyes, many users are finding corrabating evidence on sites like maps.google.com and mapquest.com. Will (Talk - contribs) 01:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• All of which is, of course, original research. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. Checking facts is not original research. Original research requires a theory, not just an observable fact. FrozenPurpleCube 16:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I'm not convinced anything's changed to warrant deletion since the last discussion. A rename may still be proper, but this isn't the forum for it. Has anyone bothered to talk to the highway gurus about this? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think your suggestion is a good one. I added ((expert)) to the page. Tarinth 15:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm one 'guru' who has discussed much with three state DOT's (Kentucky, Ohio and West Virginia). I've discussed with them "dead roads" previously in reference to abandoned alignments and bridges - but of course, this is considered "original research" - so its not admissible. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the various keep comments. There are a substantial number of sources at this point and the term has significant non-WP Ghits. As for the concern about whether the term "ghost ramp" is in general use, it is not as if there is a more common term for it. As constituted, the article contains a compilation of information not otherwise available, and therefore has independent value even apart from the question of the name. Newyorkbrad 17:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Brad, none of the sources are reliable, and the cited sources for inclusion of all the ones I've seen are maps or satellite images - which is canonical original research! Guy (Help!) 17:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Perhaps you should see Ghost ramp#References. I see many non-"maps or satellite images" references. Perhaps if people like yourself and NE2 would *ahem* contribute to the article than go on AFD sprees and stop wasting everyone's time with AFD after AFD, we could be more productive. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my major area of subject-matter expertise, so I don't know what print resources one would seek out to locate terminology of this nature. I could see a redirect to "stub ramp" (rather than vice versa) as an outcome here if that is used more commonly. But we are dealing with something that certainly exists, and is entitled to an article, irrespective of what it's called.

To overintellectualize this more than it might deserve, there are three separate issues here. One is whether the type of ramp described is entitled to its own article. The consensus is yes. Second is what to call the article. "Ghost ramp" seems to be supported by at least some non-Wikipedia sources; the term isn't a hoax or anything of that nature, even if no one has yet checked the Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Highway Terminology or whatever might exist for such a thing. Third is whether the listing of examples is accurate. The list itself seems to be reasonably sourced, and to the extent individual sources are inadequate they should evolve over time consistent with the standards applicable to other roads and highways articles.

In any event, I would like to think I am as strong a proponent of maintaining the standards of the encyclopedia as anyone, but I don't see a sufficiently serious violation of policy here to justify deleting against not just consensus but pretty much unanimity, and I will personally climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man should you do so. Newyorkbrad 20:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I appreciate the concerns, but I think that we need to be more tolerant of verifyably accurate, but not well referenced, articles. I don't see any dispute about the accuracy of the article, or the widespread usage of the term. Only lack of Wikipedia-reliable-standards meeting reliable sources for that information. That deserves a tag, not a deletion. Someone should make a better effort to find real sources, though. Georgewilliamherbert 20:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There ARE NO "real sources" for the term. It only sees use by roadgeeks. --NE2 22:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Thanks for highlighting this article by putting it in AfD. Now that I know about it, I'll probably add an Australian section sometime soon. --Athol Mullen 21:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've started writing unused highway, which is a phrase with an obvious meaning rather than a neologism. It also covers things that are not ramps. If ghost ramp is kept, it should be moved to list of unused highways. --NE2 22:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Uh, no, sorry, THAT is a terrible neologism. "Ghost ramp", along with "Ramp stub" and "Stub ramp", are in use out there. Creating a new term/phrase to describe it is worse. Georgewilliamherbert 22:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  "Unused highway" is not a neologism - it is a phrase like "list of North American rail-based transit systems". There are examples listed on ghost ramp of roadways that are not ramps - what shall we do with them? --NE2 23:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I would support unused highway as it isn't a negloism. Unused is in reference to a disused highway - can't go around that; highway is in reference to a roadway. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If "stub ramp" is in wider usage, the article should just be renamed to that but not deleted; and I see no reason not to Redirect "Ghost ramp" to the renamed article. Tarinth 23:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Why would you knowingly create a new article that deals with the same subject, one that will inevitably result in a requests to merge in one way or another? Tarinth 23:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  It deals with a rather larger subject - that of all roadways that are unused. --NE2 23:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If that is the case, why are you saying that the existing article that's up for AfD should be renamed to a list of the type of thing you are describing? Either the new article you are creating is equivalent to this subject, and its list would be the same; or it would deal with expanded subject matter, and need a new list to satisfy its informational needs. Tarinth 23:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because ghost ramp is a list. Have you looked at it? --NE2 23:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, its a list that fits well within Wikipedia. There is no citation that states lists must be deleted, especially one that is becoming well sourced and referenced. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And now I'm saying that it should be moved to list of unused highways. Ghost ramp should redirect to unused highway, but all uses of it should be changed to "stub ramp" or "ramp stub". --NE2 23:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would be in full support of move to unused highway as long as the article can continue to be improved on. What we have seen since the last AFD is a marked improvement in referencing. I've added numerous ones today (I forgot to go back and work on it for a long time) and can cite the ones for Ohio fairly soon. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I see three issues here.

The title: it's a neologism. Is there a title which is not a neologism? Does "stub ramp" have reliable sources?

The summary: it need sourcing for things like the connecting road never being built (are there other reasons? were some roads closed and removed? are some of them relics of the construction crews?)

The entires, many of which are sourced entirely from maps and photos. Some are not, they are fine, but many are, and that is OR.

I am pretty sure these things can be fixed. They need to be fixed. Please. It's an interesting subject, but... Guy (Help!) 23:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that we can find sources (newspaper articles, etc) that describe specific examples of the connecting road never being built. For instance: "Near the junction of Route 128 and Interstate 95 in Canton, amid a whir of wheels, there sits an old, unused overpass to nowhere." There's nothing reliable saying it's a "ghost ramp", but it's definitely a highway that's unused. --NE2 23:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused highway is a neologism in the sense of not being used anywhere to refer to these unused ramps. It is verifyable that there are web and print uses of "Ghost ramp" and "Stub ramp". The article refers to highway ramps, not highways as a whole. An unused or abandoned highway article is fine, but it's not a redo of this article. Unused highway ramps would be more more precisely aligned, but again, it's not what's used out there: people use "Ghost ramp" and "Stub ramp". Creating a new article title, even if it's self-evident, when that's not what is used in practice, is committing neologism. Please don't! Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 00:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So list of Florida railroads is a neologism? Commuter rail in North America is a neologism? --NE2 00:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, because "railroad" and "commuter rail" are the standard terms used widely for those technologies. 'Unused highway ramp' has 7 ghits, none of which are official documents; '"Ghost ramp" freeway' 1,340, and '"stub ramp" freeway' 74. The only reason "stub ramp" is a valid option is that a couple of those hits are US state highway department publications, one of which I noted and cited in the article. Ghost ramp wins. The term is past the line from mere neologism into common usage, even if it is not verifyably referenced yet. Georgewilliamherbert 03:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? "Unused" and "highway" are common words, just as "commuter rail" and "North America" are. "Ghost ramp", on the other hand, would mean a sloped surface related to ghosts, unless someone can find a reliable source that says otherwise. --NE2 03:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I am pretty sure these things can be fixed. They need to be fixed. Please. It's an interesting subject..." See, I have no problem with that. Yes, there are issues, but it doesn't warrant deletion (see below). I am more interested in hearing constructive comments like that than ones that state, "I am going to delete the article because it doesn't suit my tastes." Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am backing NE2 on the neologism issue. Unused is defined as something that is "not yet used" or "not finished." Highway is defined as "road or way open to the use of the public." Combine the two and you have: "Not finished road (snip)." Not hard to determine that from those two words, and from the contributions and the widespread use, it's appearant others have no problems putting two and two together. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - What the article describes is real; I've seen them. The instances are slowly being sourced. We should not delete articles over a concern over the article title. Many of our articles have titles we make up because we need a title - especially dealing with minor elements of other articles that have gotten too long. Find a better name if you wish, but don't delete. WAS 4.250 01:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Well said -- Tarinth 01:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: So is the issue now not on full deletion but on moving the article to a more appropriate name and adding sources? If so, the topic shifts away from one that isn't pertant to Wikipedia to one that can be improved upon; this AFD should be closed and a more detailed discussion regarding the name and sourcing should be instigated. Having an AFD looming over isn't very conductive to conversations on naming, etc. if one thinks that it has a chance of failing IMO. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the previous three hundred people excluding the nominator. Ford MF 05:33, 29 December 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.