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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Centennial Corridor and Westside Parkway

[edit]

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

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

These articles contain speculation about a potential freeway without demonstrating notability beyond what would be justified as a brief mention in the future section of California State Route 58. Imzadi 1979 → 18:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Imzadi 1979 → 19:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Imzadi 1979 → 19:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speculation, original research, contents not notable beyond one or two paragraphs on California State Route 58. --Rs chen 7754 19:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't currently pass GNG, and I'm not sure it will once it's built. —Fredddie ™ 22:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both to CA 58. Since it appears these two freeways are speculation, the two terms can be redirected there with a brief mention in CA 58. Dough 48 72 00:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since it appears the information from both these articles is not worth keeping in edit history, delete both and create new redirect to CA 58 for them. Dough 48 72 03:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG. The Westside Parkway, which is in fact in its early building stages, has received very significant coverage from reliable sources. [1][2][3] Even the unbuilt Centennial Corridor passes WP:GNG.[4] Many editors are under the false impression that proposed projects automatically fail WP:GNG simply because they're proposed. Not the case at all. The Lower Manhattan Expressway will likely never be built, but it still passed GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the article's creator on the talk page, the draft environmental impact study (EIS) for the construction is not out yet, meaning between the draft EIS or the final EIS, or both, the "no-build option" could be chosen and the full freeway segments not built. The fact remains that a repaving project on a highway gets "significant press coverage", but because of WP:RECENTISM that sort of project doesn't always warrant mention in the articles, or separate articles. The Michigan Department of Transportation has completely shut down the I-196 freeway here in Grand Rapids, Michigan, with near daily news updates for a while. When all is said and done, the article will contain something along the lines of "I-196 was rebuilt by MDOT in 2010 in a project dubbed, 'The Fix on I-196'. This project rebuilt the overpasses and widened the freeway to 6 lanes for future expansion." Imzadi 1979 → 01:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the Westside Parkway project has been receiving significant coverage for close to 10 years and the Centenial Corridor for close to 5 years, WP:RECENTISM (an essay, not a guideline or policy) does not apply. Even WP:RECENTISM states is it meant for topics "that might hardly be remembered a month later." --Oakshade (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it might be an essay, I still refer to the concept that some "recent events" coverage is too detailed for "the long eye of history", which is where our writing should focus. In my opinion, and yes, I'm allowed to have one, until the FEIS is out, there's speculation as to the actual outcome of these roads, and they can be adequately covered in the SR-58 article with a paragraph or two summarizing what they are and how they affect that highway. Imzadi 1979 → 19:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever is necessary. I did create this article some time ago, though I don't have any concrete recollection of doing so. It was probably during my meth days when I was on wikipedia hours on end creating and editing transportation-related articles in a drug-induced frenzy. I won't miss this article when it's gone. By the way, I am totally clean now and have been since Nov 2008. Nutmegger (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has got to be the most entertaining comment I've seen on a talk page.--Oakshade (talk) 05:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both until a "build" option is actually selected and committed to by the agency involved. Failing that, merge Westside Pkwy into Centennial Corridor, as it is a subset of the larger corridor. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:52, 6 July 2010 (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.