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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware Route 17 (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)

During a recent GA review it has been suggested by multiple editors that this article would fail Notability. More recently another editor suggested the same at Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria#Clarification requested on "broad in coverage". I think instead of just talking about it, we need to test whether this article should be kept in the first place. The relevant points are listed below:

• Ritchie333: "IMHO, not suitable for an encyclopaedia and should be deleted per WP:NOTTRAVEL"
• Alpertron: "is this article satisfactory? I've just read the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. The General notability guideline section starts with the following text: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. But it appears that the only source that can be used in this article is the DelDOT Website, which is not independent of the subject.
• Masem: "I would argue with the Delaware Route 17 article is that it fails notability guidelines - much less GA. Most the sources appear to be from the Delaware DOT or related, and regardless all are primary. Heck, this would even fail the third-party test from WP:V. "

Hope nobody minds that for efficiency I simply quoted earlier comments -- ELEKHH^T 14:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• SNOW Keep per WP:ROADOUTCOMES and per WP:5P. The latter states that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Our article on gazetteers states that one "is a geographical dictionary or directory, ... used in conjunction with a map or a full atlas. It typically contains information concerning ... roads." Further down, the article states, "gazetteer editors gather facts and other information from official government reports". (emphasis mine in all quotations.) If we're to "incorporate elements of gazetteers" and they detail information about roads from official government sources, then this article is perfectly acceptable on policy grounds. (WP:Notability is only a guideline, not a policy let alone a pillar.) Imzadi 1979 → 15:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following up with some additional comments, WP:NOTTRAVEL says: An article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées." This article doesn't list such details.
  • DelDOT itself meets the criteria laid down in WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB. Never mind the inaccuracies of calling DelDOT maps "primary sources" when they are first-party, secondary sources. (See WP:Party and person and then recognized that the primary source would be the aerial photography and GIS data used to create the map, a secondary source.)
  • The "third-party test" from WP:V is WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB, and DelDOT is an acceptable source under that test. As I mentioned above though, WP:N is only a guideline, while our stance on gazetteers is part of a pillar. Imzadi 1979 → 18:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • DelDOT articles as used here are not secondary sources. There is no transformation of information for analysis and criticism. They are also not independent of topic, and they are certainly not third party, failing WP:N and WP:V. And a gazetteer only requires we list the road, it does not require an article. Hence why redirection to a broader list of roads in Delaware makes sense in this case. (Be aware, the pillars are not policy themselves; they are a useful summary of the core policy approaches of WP. I'm not denying that serving as a gazetteer is part of WP's function, however. Just that a gazetteer doesn't require articles on the geographic features) --MASEM (t) 18:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • A DelDOT map is a first-party, secondary source. The cartographers at the agency did transform the information from surveyors' notes, raw right-of-way descriptions, aerial or satellite photography, or GIS data into a visual format we call a road map. They also made editorial judgements as to what details to include. (which rivers or streams to include? include or exclude rail lines? include or exclude additional minor/local roads?) Such editorial judgements, combined with the conversion of raw source data makes a map a secondary source, even if it's published by a first-party actor. We explicitly allow source material from "self-published sources" when it meets certain tests, and you can't seriously argue that DelDOT is not an expert in the designation and maintenance of its own state highway system. That means that as first-party, secondary sources, they are allowed per policy. Imzadi 1979 → 18:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Editorial decisions are not factors that make a work secondary. It is data about the road itself that they maintain. It doesn't matter if a map they publish includes or exlcudes features, that's not analysis or the like. This is not saying that the DelDOT sources can't be used, but we lack both third-party sources and secondary sources required by WP:V and WP:N. Unless independent secondary sources can demonstrate interest in the road beyond mere existence, we shouldn't have an article on it. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, it is analysis. Cartography is a trained profession, and certainly not a simple one. A primary source is raw data, a secondary source is an interpretation of that data. WP:N is a guideline superceded by WP:5. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wrong. For the description of the route a road takes, a map is primary; there's no analysis involved to identify that. Charting the road as to minimize elevation changes, turns, etc., is trained, and if information about how the road had to be craft to avoid such things were available, that would be secondary. But the route that a completed road takes - the primary content of this article - is primary information, period. No analysis is needed to understand that from a map. Further, the Five Pillars have no status like policy or guideline - they summarize them but have no weight. This is no attempt to say that we can't serve a gazetteer function, but that can be done with lists and tables just as effectively and within all other policy (including WP:V) and guidelines. --MASEM (t) 05:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • You can bold it all you like, but it doesn't change the facts. I'm training in civil engineering, and I can tell you there is a hell of a lot more to making a map then tracing a line over an aerial photograph. What the information is about is irrelevant to whether it is primary or secondary. All that matters is the number of interpretations that have been performed since the collection of the data. You're right that no special knowledge is required to interpret a map - which is why it isn't considered original research for us to use them to write our route descriptions. Again, how they are used (whether for a description of the route or the history) is irrelevant to the specifics of the source. I'm sorry that you feel that a page that begins The five pillars summarize the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates has no status, but I'm sure the closing admin will disagree with you. I'll leave it to them sooner than waste my finger-strength. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • A source can be primary for some topics, and secondary for others. A map of a road drawn up by the organization that built and maintains that road may be secondary for aspects like the local geographical terrain features, elevations, property ownership, wildlife regions, and a number of other factors, because as you very well state, all those details had to be compiled to plot out its path to minimize cost and impact and maximize benefit. But, with that road in place and drawn on the map, the map is primary with respect to talking about the road. It is fundamental data with no analysis on the route it takes (as that has been completed). And no, it's not original research to take primary sources and summarize them (this is done all the time in fictional works, much less other published works), that's not the issue. The issue is that without any secondary sources, there is no relevance for this article; it is just a "stat dump" to speak without stating any importance to the general reader. It fails notability, which every other field has to meet. We can still meet the gazetteer function of the pillars by putting the route into a larger table of state highways in Delaware. --MASEM (t) 19:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • In case you haven't looked, I added some non-DelDOT sources to the article. Dough4872 20:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • They only mention the road and give no other analysis about it, ergo they are not secondary sources. --MASEM (t) 20:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – State highways are typically notable. Per Wikipedia's Five pillars, the encyclopedia also functions as a gazetteer. Also keep per WP:ROADOUTCOMES and Wikipedia:Notability (geography). Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Imzadi 1979 → 15:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Imzadi 1979 → 15:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per the longstanding consensus about numbered state highways recently and overwhelmingly reconfirmed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 370. Through the constructive efforts of many editors, Wikipedia has built excellent coverage of state highway systems. Picking holes in the coverage is not beneficial to the encyclopedia.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW Keep - Per WP:USRD/NT, WP:ROADOUTCOMES, and the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 370. Dough4872 16:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted that reading these: USRD/NT (besides being an essay) doesn't immediately say all routes are notable; ROADOUTCOMES says nothing about a state route like this (particularly as there's very little beyond the route info itself). There is no clear case to keep unlike if this was a village or town per OUTCOME. --MASEM (t) 17:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, there is - national- and state-level highways are treated exactly the same as towns and villages. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, but this is not a state-level highway. It's a 8 mile, 2 lane road. --MASEM (t) 23:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is a state highway, so it is a state-level highway. Plus, if you want to go that route, Delaware is a small state, so it does not take much to be a state-level highway. --Rschen7754 23:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Granted I'll give you that , that it's technically a highway, despite the fact that its short and doesn't have high speed areas that would usually be part of a road's importance. This, to me, highlights the problem that this long-standing walled garden of road notability has had; just because it says "highway" doesn't make it notable. Or actually, to be more consistent with all other notability guidelines, there's not an issue if the road project wants to make the assumption that all major state level highways are presumed notable, but that recognizition needs to come that some, like this one, fail all other expectations for article quality and sourcing, and thus is not automatically notable. --MASEM (t) 02:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're slightly misrepresenting our position: we do not consider the vast majority of county highways notable enough for their own article. --Rschen7754 03:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I recognize you're not considering county-level roads. I can't deny that this is a "state highway" since it's labeled by the state as that. But I do dispute the fact that there's no consideration of "presumed" notability here. Per other subnotability guidelines like WP:BIO and WP:NSPORTS, its reasonable to say that topics meeting specific criteria within a given field are presumed to be notable and hence can have a full topic, so in this case, I can understand that the article would likely be created and given time to grow. But now that presumption is being challenged (particularly after someone stated it was GA-ready, ergo believed to be complete), it needs to be shown this article meets wider expectations for notability, namely the need of secondary sources. --MASEM (t) 19:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • The article does have non-primary sources (the maps, which are actually secondary, along with a couple of news references). Dough4872 20:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Maps are not secondary sources when used to describe the path a road takes. The news references are not secondary works about the road as the road is only mentioned in passing. So there remain no secondary sources about the route. --MASEM (t) 20:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The article does far more than simply describe the shape of the route, and the maps are also used for history. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • The additional information (like the traffic count, and the years it was constructed) are still primary data with no analysis. Why was the road built? Why is it still maintained? What's its importance to the traffic? How has or hasn't it helped? I suspect many of those questions have broad answers underneath some article about the whole of the Delaware route system, but not on specific routes. I know there exists 2-lane roads well longer than 8 miles that aren't state roads or even numbered, but certainly wouldn't be suitable for an article on WP. We need to understand why this specific road is important beyond just existing. Otherwise, its better suited to be listed as part of table of roads in Delaware (as to remain the gazetteer function). --MASEM (t) 23:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to an appropriate list. There is no secondary information about this road. Unlike villages and towns where people actually live there and thus will have a good chance of history expansions, roads are just roads, and unless more information beyond their primary data can be found, they shouldn't have their own article. We can still achieve the function of being a gazetteer by having such roads given in a list article; a gazetteer doesn't require a separate article for each element within it. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Should we redirect every other Delaware highway to a list? If we did this, the list would have issues per WP:SIZE. Dough4872 16:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Arbitrary splits of large lists are acceptable. I dunno where the split would need to be but "List of Delaware State Routes, 1-200" and "List of Delaware State Routes, 201-400" would be fine. And those routes that are notable can retain their separate articles while still being listed in the larger tables for completeness. --MASEM (t) 16:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 370 and WP:ROADOUTCOMES as well as WP:N. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Enclyclopedic topic, good sourcing, good content. North8000 (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per arguments about the notability of state highways, many of which are linked above. Also per precedent; this goes against the longstanding consensus about the notability of state highways dating back over six years. --Rschen7754 18:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep and WP:SNOW close - we just went through this last week. As part of Wikipedia's remit as a gazzeteer, enshrined in the Five Pillars, state-level and above highways are deemed to be always notable and are included. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per previous discussions on state-highway related matters, WP:5P indicating that Wikipedia includes components of a gazetteer, and WP:ROADOUTCOMES indicating state-level highways have sufficient notability to meet the requirement of being mentioned in such a work. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and snow close per WP:POINT. –Fredddie™ 00:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per recent outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 370. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I realise this is going to have no effect on the outcome (except possibly preventing a snow close), but I questioned the notability of a similar article and said that I would suggest deletion if it came to AFD then. I can not see how an article that has no real coverage outside of maps can have notability. It is like writing an article on an object just based off a picture or diagram. It fails WP:GNG which has more weight to my mind than Roadoutcomes and a Wikiprojects notability guideline. The WP:5P argument seems a bit of a stretch too. If we use the same reasoning for almanacs we would have blanket inclusion of "weather forecasts, farmers' planting dates, tide tables, ...". AIRcorn (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree that those siting the Pennsylvania Route 370 AFD is basically using the argument to avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This is a new discussion in a new light (specifically, the fact that this article cannot ever reach a GA in this state, and thus questions the appropriateness of the article in the first place). --MASEM (t) 02:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that an article cannot make it to GA, or should be removed from GA, is not a reason to delete it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only point about noted the GA discussion is to point out that this is a different argument from the Pennsylvania road AFD. In general, it is considered bad form to launch a re-nom or a different nom on a similar topic for a reason when that same reason clearly failed in the previous nomination. All I'm saying is, because this is coming from "how could this have been made into a GA?" discussion, it is a new argument, so any similarities to the Pennsylvania route AFD should be dropped from both sides. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Except that the aforementioned PA 370 is also a GA. Imzadi 1979 → 23:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because, as exemplified in a statement of one of the proponents of deletion, "in general, it is considered bad form to launch a re-nom or a different nom on a similar topic for a reason when that same reason clearly failed in the previous nomination." (wikilinks added)  VC  00:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And as I pointed out, the reasoning for this AFD is not the same as the previous one. Ergo, this is a bogus !vote. --MASEM (t) 01:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article is essntially the same as PA 370 and the same reasonings apply. Dough4872 01:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article is a GA and should have been de-certified from that status before being sent to AfD. I do not believe any good/featured content should be subject to XfD until and unless de-certified from that status first. Jclemens (talk) 03:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Good article criteria does not deal with notability. Therefore it is possible for a non-notable article to be classed as Good. AIRcorn (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good article status, or the ability to attain or keep same, is, anyway, irrelevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have added some news sources to the article that are not from DelDOT. Dough4872 04:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep despite the insistence that maps are primary sources (a good faith mistake between primary and first party IMO), the article has second party coverage. This is in addition to the well reinforced community opinion that state and provincial highways are all eligible for inclusion. This article is well beyond the threshold for its own independent article, but there are plenty of Toronto street articles that could use an opinion! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'm 100% positive that a map, as a reference to simply describe the route a road takes, is a primary data source. What analysis or critical claims are being made? What transformation of information is being made? (About the route, not about how the map was made) --MASEM (t) 23:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is an editorial decision whether or not a road is major enough to be on a map, in particular, on a state-wide map. Residential streets are not notable enough to be on state-wide maps, generally. --Rschen7754 00:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The raw data is surveying measurements, angles and coordinates. A cartographer then determines which data - the road or otherwise - to include in that map. They determine the scale, the symbols used to describe information, which roads to include (because they are notable) or which to not include (because they are minor and not of importance to the intended audience of the map. They determine which towns and villages to include on such a map, which features are worthy of labelling. This is an editorial judgment and makes the final outcome a secondary product of primary data. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also see Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_39#Regarding_maps_being_.22primary_sources.22_according_to_this_policy. --Rschen7754 00:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's not transformational information about the road, simply a choice of the map maker. For a state-level map it would be silly of the map maker to exclude any numbered state highway in the first place. Editorial decisions of what or what not to include from a larger data set does not necessarily make a work secondary. Recapturing of data without additional analysis from something like GIS also does not make the map secondary with respect to the topic of the road itself. That discussion in the archives doesn't seem to convince editors that maps immediately qualify as secondary sources; they are certainly acceptable primary sources about roads, etc. and should be included in notable road articles, but cannot be used to demonstrated notability since they are, for all purposes, processed data with no discussion. --MASEM (t) 00:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • "For a state-level map it would be silly of the map maker to exclude any numbered state highway in the first place." - Not true; what about secondary-level state highways, or ones that are less than a mile long? Also, what about other roads that are not state highways but show up on those sort of maps anyway? As far as the archive debate, a quote from User:DGG, a professional librarian: "How can something representing nature by conventional man-made symbols be regarded as a primary source?" --Rschen7754 00:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • If I chose to publish a set of Yellow Pages but with only the A entries, that is not a secondary source just because of that editorial control. The periodic table is something from nature being represented by man-made symbols, and it would be considered a primary source if we were talking about any of the elements on it. Another argument is this: Anyone can take the publically available GIS data, and using home-built software tools, create a map of the road. For purposes of demonstrating what the route of that road is, that is not original research (this is done all the time for charts and graphs). Secondary sources normally necessitates that the information is original research that cannot be claims by Wikipedia's editors. Since a user-map map just showing the route is not original research, it is not likely going to be secondary research as well. --MASEM (t) 01:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • And even if one considered a map as a secondary source, the GNG requires "significant coverage in secondary sources". The road's route from a map is very much not significant coverage - it's just data. We need multiple secondary sources, which have not been provided. --MASEM (t) 01:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • WP:5P. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it's also a gazetteer. Gazetteers include information on national- and state-level roads; also overwhelming WP:CONSENSUS: WP:OUTCOMES is that all state roads that can be verified are notable and kept. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • 5P is not policy, but we can still achieve the function of a gazetteer by putting not-notable roads into lists. OUTCOMES can be challenged, and is not an assurance an article can be kept, and given the arguments presented to keep, there needs to be a re-evaluation of this for roads. Just because something can be verified doesn't mean we should have an article on it (per policy WP:V). --MASEM (t) 01:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • "5P is not policy"...now I've seen it all. 5P isn't "policy" because it's a Wikipedia founding principle! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • No it's not. It's a fallacy that it is a founding principle of WP (the only principle is m:mission). WP:5 was created as a means to summarize WP's core policy and guidelines into these 5 pillars. I'm not saying that they don't reflect how Wikipedia works, but it is mistaken to think they're infallible or immune to counterarguments and consensus changes. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Debates and discussions are nice and all, but this one flies in the face of an overwhelming consensus. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Some additional information from secondary sources has been added to the article which adds notability to the subject such as indicating that it is part of the hurricane escape route. I think that if given more time, more information from secondary sources can be added. Alpertron (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2012 (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.