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. Outcome for B5470 road only, all other listed roads were not tagged properly. It's not obvious that they could be WP:BUNDLED neither. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B5470 road[edit]

B5470 road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non notable roads, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Also nominating B4347 road, B1108 road, B1110 road, B1120 road, B1436 road, B1145 road, B1149 road, B1159 road, B1354 road, B2177 road. –Davey2010^Talk 15:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Not sure how we assess the notability of a minor road. It is hard to conclude, unless they have a specific name or historical record of importance, that they're notable in my view. For example Ermin_Way seems to me to have a good notability claim, its designation as the B400 road (currently a redirection to B roads in Zone 4 of the Great Britain numbering scheme) does not. JMWt (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any road can be notable if it has significant secondary source coverage, not being just passing references. When there are just map sources and directory entries, or passing mentions, it is basically original research. We do not need a stub article for every mundane B road.Charles (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all for now. Fail WP:GNG. If anyone wants to dig out enough secondary source material to write a decent article on any they can be recreated later.Charles (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Named road, recognised high-level moorland crossing, useful content not aggregated elsewhere. Compare Snake Pass, Via Gellia, A5004 road for local equivalents. I see no point in deleting good content. Dave.Dunford (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:ITEXISTS isn't a valid reason for deletion, As an aside it's a "recognised high-level moorland crossing" for the locals but outside they're all unrecognized and probably not even known to anyone else bar the locals. –Davey2010^Talk 20:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is WP:UNKNOWNHERE a reason for deletion. This has come up before: see Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/B roads in the United Kingdom, which suggests little consensus. The Highwayman is certainly locally notable, if not nationally: it's a former turnpike road (whose history could be documented by an interested editor), it's a named route, and it's part of a well-known motorcycling circuit. No opinion on the others, though personally I find B-roads more notable than Pokemon characters, sitcom episodes and any number of other similar categories of article. Dave.Dunford (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just for info, I've added a brief History section to the article, with a couple of references. Dave.Dunford (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – B roads are not minor roads. In my opinion all B roads are inherently notable, just like any populated place is assumed notable. Oculi (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• A roads are considered notable, B roads aren't. –Davey2010^Talk 01:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep B5470 road, delete others - B roads are rarely notable, most of these don't fall into the notability cateogry. I'm not claiming that the B5470 is notable, however I feel it has potential so I'm erring on the side of caution on that one Jeni ^(talk) 11:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Withdrawing my preference, this AfD can't stand as procedure has not been followed. Jeni ^(talk) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Such a sweeping and wide nomination makes it difficult to assess each article individually, I advise the nominator to withdraw, regardless of my comment above and nominate each individually, or at least in smaller chunks of similar articles. Jeni ^(talk) 11:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• These still haven't been nominated for deletion properly - there's no template on most of the articles. Peter James (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not sure if it has any relevance, but the B5470 is formed from parts of former A roads ( A6 and A5002) WhaleyTim (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Nom comment - Well I originally closed as Keep as it seems a better idea to nom individually... But Charles wasn't happy with that hence it being reopened so can an admin just wrap this shit up. –Davey2010^Talk 13:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This should have just been left closed and nominated individually. Even though my preference was to delete most, there is no way this can happen in this nom, it's too broad and wasn't implemented properly. I urge User:Charlesdrakew to revert his reopening in the interests of common sense. Procedure has not been followed so any result of this AfD can't stand. I urge whoever renominates these individually to spread the nominations over the space of a couple of weeks, to allow editors sufficent time to judge each article on it's merits, rather than resorting to blanket statements (as so often happens) (Just my opinion on the way forward) Jeni ^(talk) 13:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Er? I have nor reopened anything recently.Charles (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Was this not you? Jeni ^(talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Oops. I see I did. Must have been an unintended click. Not intended but it was an inappropriate close anyway.Charles (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I would argue that it was an appropriate closure, pending renominating each individually. It's just common sense that this isn't going to result in a delete (speaking as someone who !voted delete for most), the nomination is far too broad. Regardless of that, the nomination hasn't been executed correctly, templates haven't been placed on each article that has been nominated. I see no point in fixing this myself as it won't close as anything other than keep or no consensus.

  Logic dictates, leave this discussion be, and allow Davey to renominate individually. Yes, policy states that the discussion should stay open, but surely you can see how common sense would overrule it in this instance, given that there are going to be nominations following this? I urge you to revert your reopening. Jeni ^(talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Jeni - I should probably admit that when I nominate more than one article in one AFD I never place AFD tags on the individual articles (Same goes with MFD) .... When I used to add them individually it was always the regulars !voting so it seemed a waste of time but meh we all have our different ways of doing things :) .... Well hey least we can agree on that this should've been left closed :). –Davey2010^Talk 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Like Dave.Dunford, I think this road has notability beyond being a little country back lane. It needs additional sourcing, yes, but we don't need to delete. Rcsprinter¹²³ (inform) 11:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Also agree with Dave.Dunford Class455fan1 (talk to me) 11:23, 26 November 2015 (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.