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. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost ramp[edit]

To the best of my knowledge, "ghost ramp" is a term only used by roadgeeks, so this violates avoid neologisms. It may also violate no original research; see Wikipedia talk:No original research#Ghost ramp. --NE2 08:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'd also never heard of this expression, but it's irrelevant who uses the term, only notability of the term is relevant. Not many people who don't follow cricket use cricket's jargon (see Leg bye), but the words are notable nonetheless. I found 60,000+ Google hits for "ghost ramp freeway" and another 18,000+ for "ghost ramp motorway". Notable. --Dweller 08:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC) I stand corrected. Neutral per Night Gyr below. --Dweller 09:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your google test is flawed. The words "ghost" "ramp" and "motorway" are all common, but don't necessarily refer to ghost ramps. a search for the specific phrase "ghost ramp" (with quotes) only turned up about 1200 hits, and with "-wikipedia" added (to remove mirrors), only left about 400[1]. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete, there's no clear sourcing for the definition of the term beyond being a roadfan neologism. Only 400 online occurances with no reliable sources readily apparent to define it, rather than simply use it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Perhaps then the article can be renamed "Abandoned Highway Segments".... or something along those lines... Route 82 14:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it still faces the OR issue, though, because the only source for a lot of these is a photograph of the ramp in question, which says nothing about whether it is actually abandoned or why it is in the current state. It's a shame, since it's an interesting article, but I don't see proper sources for almost any of it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The main issue is more the lack of sourcing than the impossibility of sourcing, IMO. When I put in the effort to find sourcing for the Houston items, I had to drop one (out of five) because I wouldn't be able to produce a source. (One more was dropped because it has gone under active planning for completion.) --Mr Wednesday 23:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment since I am working at a computer that rejects cookies and therefore cannot sign in. The terms "ghost ramp" and "stub ramps" are synonymous and have been use long before there was an Internet (the definition can be found here, for example, in addition to several travel books; the State of Washington uses the synonym here). As far as WP:NOR is concerned, those ghost ramps/stub ramps mentioned in the page that have external links most definitely do not constitute original research in the Wikipedia definition. This this the most liberal interpretation of WP:NOR I've seen in my time with Wikipedia - if this interpretation is upheld, then 90 percent of the road articles (and 100% of those with current exit lists) violate the policy as well. Furthermore, if we are now defining neologisms as terms being used by only a certain segment of the population, we'd better be very well consistent in that interpretation... and delete about 99% of the technology articles - or anything dealing with a very specialized topic - as well. From this person's viewpoint, this is right on the edge of a bad faith nomination, particularly in light of over 150 external links and references in the article.147.70.242.40 19:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Count of references means nothing if none of them are reliable or support what the article is actually claiming. List of YTMND Fads had hundreds of linked YTMNDs but it was still original research to identify things as fads. Unless you have sources documenting that these ramps are in fact abandoned, it's original research to link and satellite photo and claim it as proof that the ramp is abandoned. As for the glossary, all it says is that "some definitions of commonly used words and phrases on AARoads," it doesn't say it's an accepted term beyond that website or with any particular history, or even that it's the best term. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (Before I even get to my reply, I should point out that its synonym "stub ramp" has been used/cited in legal opinions, including this one from Australia). Now, are you saying that photographs showing their existence are OR without the documentation of their history? If that is the case, all this article would need would be a more emphatic presentation of the references to their histories. This can be done without having to resort to an extreme measure of an AfD... as quite a few of them are already there, just not presented in a fashion that seems to be preferred by some editors.147.70.242.40 19:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If Stub ramp is the accepted legal term, I'd place the article under that title and have no problem with keeping it. It just needs a greater trimming to emphasize the identification in other sources of these ramps as abandoned. Most of them don't have that sourcing. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree that the article should be moved, but not deleted. The article needs to be pruned and renamed. There is some interesting stuff here, like the I-70/I-95 interchange that got cancelled and the ramps that were partially built. Much of this is not relevant. Now as for claiming there's a stub ramp, IMHO aerial photography to show out-of-use ramps and whatnot is fine, pictures are neat to, but to claim where a half-built ramp would go would need a source. For example "There are ghost ramps on I-65 in Huntsville for both north- and southbound" or something like that, Google map it. To continue "these ramps were to be I-365, but was cancelled" needs to be sourced. There are no ramps there, it's an example I made up. --MPD01605 (T / C) 22:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, but rename and fix up. There is interesting information here which probably desrves an article - the main problems seem to be verifiability, OR and neologism. If a better, non-neologistic name can be found, and the other issues can be addressed, then this could make a reasonable article. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The page was nominated IIRC for a renaming and it failed due to a lack of consensus and argument. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the simple reasons that it is both interesting and informative. A few more sources would help, but I don't see any need for deletion. --Chris24 04:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: This is an informative article that contains sources (e.g. aerial images provide documentation and cannot be considered 'original research'). Now if the entry lists a reason why the stub exists (outside of where it is at), then a proper cite should be attributed. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • How are they not original research? Looking at a photo shows something that looks like a ramp, but saying that it's abandoned is our own analysis of that photo. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The photos are a pretty clear indication of ramps that lead to nowhere. There's obviously a reason that all of these ghost ramps exist and the fact that they do exist (with associated proof in the form of satellite pictures) is not debatable. For someone to say the ramp was built and the project was cancelled is not original research, though it may be unsourced. Unsourced statements are not necessarily original research. Just request sources (((fact))) on anything that you think is not properly sourced. Sparingly use the ((OR)) tag for speculation only. Ufwuct 18:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are not original research because an aerial image clearly indicates that the ramp is no longer used and is abandoned. It doesn't take a genius to see that if you see an abandoned ramp, or a graded path, that it was to be for a purpose. That itself is not original research.

Now if you go on and state, "This ramp was abandoned due to XXX factor and this XXX factor" with no sources, then that IS original research. Big difference. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A graded path could have been a railroad, or a power line access road, or an underground pipeline... --NE2 20:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. There is enough indicators for the most part that one can determine if it was to be part of a ramp. An inspection via a topographic map usually helps in this respect, as does careful analysis of the aerial image. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it gets into "careful analysis" you're doing research. We need reliable sources that come out and say it, not expert eyes looking at photographs. We're not here to reanalyze cold war spy photographs and write our own numbers for the size of the soviet arsenal. No one can verify the information without duplicating the expert abilities, and even then they could end up disagreeing, which comes down to a battle of credentials--exactly the sort of problem that we're trying to avoid by requiring WP:V and WP:NOR. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because the article contains informative and interesting information, for road geeks at least. Again, maybe we could come up with a better name for the article, but if we can't, that doesn't mean that the information within the article should be discarded. The alternate names for ghost ramp are given in the first line of the introduction, so a reader unfamiliar with the term ghost ramp should recognize one of the other terms. Ufwuct 18:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It looks like there might be consensus to rename the article and remove all unsourced entries. Do people agree or disagree with this? --NE2 20:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And we can't come up to what kind of "source" you would require. An aerial image is enough of a source for the vast majority. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An aerial image will not show whether there are current plans to build anything there. --NE2 20:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does it need to. A ghost ramp is a ramp that is abandoned, no longer used. Why would we need to list 'current plans' for each one when it is unknown for most? If there are plans, good, cite them and include it. If not, no worries. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that that is the definition of a ghost ramp? Do you have any reliable sources that define it? However, even accepting that definition, how does one know from aerials that the ramp is abandoned? --NE2 20:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no set defination outside of several articles that have stated "ramps to nowhere" or "stubs" or "ghost ramps." But I suppose it is a descriptive title that is far easier to manage and state than "Highway reminants that are no longer in operation". One can tell from aerials when a ramp is abandoned, it doesn't take a genius to see that [2] contains a ghost ramp. Or that [3] was originally a terminus just by judging from a topographic map (the article contains a factual source as well). If you can't tell what's abandoned/disused and active from an aerial image, perhaps that indicates you are just pulling for air here. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read avoid neologisms. --NE2 22:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities... and if the term has been in use for over four decades, it might not have "recently been coined," unless we wish to argue and nitpick on the definition of "recently" (while we're at it, shall we also debate of legitimacy of the Wikipedia definitions of "obscenity" and "smut"?). The terms "ghost ramp" and "stub ramp" predate the Internet by decades - and, unless there has been a change of definition in the last few years, neither involved the abandonment issue. AARoads.com summarized it best: they are roads (and ramps) to nowhere.147.70.242.40 22:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep rename if necessary. Seattle was full of "Ramps to nowhwere" before I-90 was extended and they were used as landmarks for directions and traffic reports. It's a recognized phenom in most places. SchmuckyTheCat 21:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you would list any "ghost ramp" that exists or that used to exist? --NE2 21:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much it. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, this article will be a very large list, listing every single place that a road once ended temporarily, and every place a small piece of pavement exists or existed from a former alignment. I don't see that being a good article, not that the current article seems good to me. --NE2 22:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's obviously a lot of work gone into this article and I have to say that I found it rather interesting (and I'm not a "roadgeek" in any shape or form - in fact, I didn't know they existed until I read this AfD!). If it's a neologism then it's probably a rather apt one for the subject, and I really don't think it's OR; these things either exist or they don't, and I would suspect that the whole list has not been made up (particularly given the references) - if they exist then it's not original research. -- Necrothesp 22:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sheesh, looking at aerial images and drawing your own conclusions is totally silly. The funny thing is he says that citing the year and the reason it was abandoned (presumably from a newspaper report), then THAT would be original research? Wow. I've never done this before but this article needs to go simply because of the bafflingly clueless reason being given for how we should research this article. --W.marsh 22:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing is he says that citing the year and the reason it was abandoned (presumably from a newspaper report), then THAT would be original research?

Who said that? Ufwuct 14:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More seriously, this term seems to be not used outside of roadgeek forums and Wikipedia mirrors [4]. Nothing is turned up in a news search nor in an academic journal search. Serious WP:V problems, closer needs to take this into account. --W.marsh 22:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Seems like pure WP:OR. WP editors scouring aerial photos for apparently abandoned highway ramps is classical research work. I think this article should be a poster child for explaining what WP is not and what no original research is all about. Notability of the subject is also unproven. Crum375 23:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Where's your evidence that they obtained their information by "scouring aerial photos"? Looks like a bit of a leap to a conclusion on the basis of not a lot of evidence. Gathering together information for an article is in no way original research. The detail of the information provided on the page certainly does not imply that these are merely assumptions of the existence of ghost ramps based on aerial photographs (which would be original research). -- Necrothesp 00:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't find any items listed where the reference is anything more than a link to an aerial image. Thus it seems like that's exactly what's going on here... Wikipedians looking at Aerial images and drawing their own conclusions. This is what critics mean when they say Wikipedia is just a group blog. --W.marsh 00:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Well, all I can say is that if they got all that info from an aerial photograph they must be psychic! -- Necrothesp 00:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • To be fair, the Houston items (only, AFAIK) do have some references, but reading them did not lead me to conclude they are actually abandoned, as there was discussion about future plans. Crum375 00:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again, this brings us back to the scope of what this article should be. Is it about ramps that for which the connecting road will be built + ones that may be built + ones that will almost certainly not be built? What Wikipedian is in the position to interpret what "may" or "almost certainly not" mean? If Wikipedians try to determine the difference themselves, without reliable sources, that would constitute original research. Determining the difference with reliable sources is good article writing. Regarding the ramps in Houston, I think a 20+ year period before construction continues on ramps is notable (like Spur 5). Ufwuct 00:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then why is the only reference the image, in nearly every entry? As Crum is pointing out, there seems to be a real scarcity of any reliable sources calling these things "ghost ramps", which is why this article has real verifiability issues. --W.marsh 00:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • There are many unsourced articles on WP. That's not a good reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp 00:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • If sources can't be produced, it is. Read WP:V. "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." --W.marsh 00:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure sources exist for many of these ramps. State DOT offices would have information on proposed freeways and local newspaper articles would, in many cases, explain why the project was cancelled. Let's work on sourcing some of the major ones, possibly keeping the unsourced ones on the talk page until sources can be found. Ufwuct 01:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the sources earlier for the Houston area ramps and also a few non-satellite sources for the Saint Louis area ramps. I would think the Embarcadero, Mt. Hood Freeway, and I-70 extension into Baltimore would have reliable sources explaining the reason for the cancellations as these were contentious routes. Ufwuct 22:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier I stated that the article should be kept, and I still feel that way, but that does not mean that I think the article is fine the way it is now. The article states that a ghost ramp "is an incomplete onramp or offramp which does not connect a freeway or expressway with another road" and on a cursory look it appears there are numerous entries do not meet the definition. Some examples from the region I live in are the 2 entries for Louisville. The first entry is a highway section that is partially complete in anticipation of being completed, has no ramps that do not connect to another road, and has no 'ghost ramps'. The second Louisville entry is on a completed intersection, so it should not included either. A Cincinnati entry has its reference as a page on 'Never-Built Cincinnati Expressways'... if it was never built, there is no 'ghost ramp' there either. In contrast, I've driven through Memphis several times and have seen these ramps to nowhere and, being the curious person that I am, looked it up online and found that the partially constructed highway was stopped mid-construction due to a lawsuit that was won by neighborhood groups. I would be the first to say that the article does have inaccuracies and is in need of cleanup, but that does not mean it needs to be deleted altogether. Ghost ramp is a valid term and this could be a good article if it only included true ghost ramps (which I would guess would be about ⅓ of what is actually listed) and had more references than just links to aerial photographs, but instead of throwing the good out with the bad I find it preferable to make the mediocre better. --Chris24 01:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's mediocre - I think it's totally unacceptable as it stands. I think it has to be deleted and if it ever comes back, it has to be strictly based on verifiable data. The Google aerial photos can be used as additional support - they should never serve as sources. The notability of the actual title and concept also has to be established - we don't accept neologisms. Crum375 02:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If your reasoning is convincing, & the closing Admin decides that this article should be deleted, we should then turn our attention to deleting roadgeek. That term is obviously a neologism, & that article also lacks the sources you are demanding. -- llywrch 17:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per above. --Masamage 05:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I believe that any claims that this is "original research", is a case of observing the letter of the law but killing the spirit: there is no novel interpretation or explanation here. We are not dealing with a case along the lines of "Atlantis is in Brooklyn" or "Christianity is based on racism" here. The article attempts to document a phenomena that exists in many places: off ramps that lead nowhere. A glance at the Page history & its talk page will show that it is currently under dynamic development, & all of the objections I have so far read in this AfD can be handled by simply working on the article. -- llywrch 23:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Working on the article...Exactly. Thank you for voicing what I could not. This article is not a completed work but a work in progress. Ufwuct 14:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. I think that claims of original research are based upon the false assumption that the information was gathered only from aerial photos...when in fact, in many cases, the information is common knowledge in the area in question, but is hard to cite because it has not been reported on in many years, and would have only been reported by local news sources, if anything. Besides, I always thought that the purpose of the aerial photo links was not to cite sources, but to illustrate the ramp being described. And before I forget, I do think the term is common enough. — Lastusernameever 13:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Despite my previous comment, I can't vouch for the title of the article, as it does seem to be a term that only roadgeeks use. However, as the length of the list shows, ghost ramps are clearly a common phenomenon(in the US at least), and are notable IMO. If this is kept, maybe the name could be changed ("List of abandoned highway ramps", perhaps?) However, I have not changed my vote. — Lastusernameever 15:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think you can be more descriptive and short than "ghost ramp". Anyone (incl. non-roadgeeks) can clue in on the terminology quite fast. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename: Move this to the proper civil engineering term (I don't know what it is). If there is none, move it to a generic description like "Abandoned highway ramps". Include only those that are definitely known to be part of a former proposed highway that got cancelled. --Polaron | Talk 15:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, but there's the rub. Most of these are merely supported by a WP enthusiast's GoogleMap aerial photo of what seems to fit the criterion (with possible added comment "trust me, over here everyone knows it's abandoned"). A little short on reliable sourcing, to the say the least, and a little long on original research. To meet the criterion you suggest, we would need definitive information showing the stub in question is truly abandoned, not just a work-in-progress with some possible delay. And I have yet to see a single such reference that clearly shows abandonment for any of the items in the article. And even if there are a couple that I missed, the vast majority are pure WP:OR and speculation at this time. Crum375 15:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you can't tell that from this image, you cannot see the stubs? Perhaps we should all don on reading glasses here, because it seems as if the majority of the nay-sayers are doubting these are really abandoned and are doubting the credibility of said publishers who worked on this article! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is the future, not the present. The picture only shows us the present - not the future. If there are plans afoot to continue construction next year, it would mean the project is not abandoned, yet the aerial photo won't tell you that. If you have glasses that can see the future, I'll buy a couple of pairs from you. Crum375 16:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, we have not decided on the scope, so it is the present phenomenon that we (many editors) are trying to describe (with, in some cases, information about past construction plans). I brought this up before, asking what the scope should be. Some editors have suggested that it only be about ramps that were built with the intention of connecting to another freeway which were later cancelled. However, there was no consensus. The scope of the article could be to-be-constructed freeways or "abandoned" ramps. Many of the naysayers seem to be using this one case (that the article should only include "abandoned" ramps) so that they can make a half-credible argument of original research. All of the satellite photos show non-completed ramps and that is not debatable. If we eventually decide to limit the scope to only abandoned ramps, and editors add unsourced information claiming that a ramp is abandoned based only on a satellite photo, then you can make the claim of original research. Ufwuct 17:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to invoke the spirit, thogh not the literal reading, of WP:AAGF. No one is calling anybody uncredible. (Incredible?) --Masamage 16:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True - my own remark about "trust me, everyone here knows it's abandoned" is only to highlight the fact that WP does not recognize an editor's "say so" as acceptable source. Crum375 16:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then an amendment can be added when it is (if) constructed. Wikipedia is a work in progress, nothing is finalised. Contributors come and go, and so will entries for this article. Therefore, if you have any evidence to prove that it is being extended or whatever, you should add it rather than try and blast down the entire page based on the pretense that "something could happen." Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Abandoned', as in a public project, has a negative connotation, that reflects poorly on the community and/or its local government. At WP we only make a negative comment about a community or a government if it's well supported. In this case, if you see an incomplete project, you cannot call it 'abandoned' until you have reliable proof that it had been given up on. We assume innocent till proven guilty, not the other way around. Crum375 17:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're stretching here. "Abandoned" is not necessarily perjorative: in the case of the ghost ramps (or whatever you want to call these things) along I-5 in Portland, they were built for projected highways that not only were never built, it took local grassroots mobilization to stop them. Making government officials listen to the people is sometimes a good thing. And saying that these projects could be restarted any time is much like saying that the USA is not definitively independent of the UK: after all, the UK could always raise & send an army to end their "rebellion". -- llywrch 17:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling a project, that has a visually unsightly ramp leading to nowhere, 'abandoned' is making a judgment, not just a visual observation. That judgment requires proof, per WP:V and WP:NOR. Crum375 17:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to use the black-and-white term "abandoned" in every paragraph if the article is kept. There are many options:

• Where proof and reliable sources exist, use "abandoned".
• Where the status of the ramp is unknown, but proof exists that it has never been used, we could say "unused"

• Or "unused for X years".

• Where the satellite picture shows an obvious ramp that is unusable (e.g. because it dead-ends in mid-air) leading to nothing, we could say "currently unused stub ramp". (Again, this depends on the scope of the article that we decide on).
• etc., etc.

However, if the article is deleted, there will be no chance to convey these differences or subtleties. Let's have a little faith in future editors that they will be able to word the text properly (and of course, provide reliable sources as well). Ufwuct 17:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break. So let's just remake this article into one that is just all rosy and cheerful by calling them "unused highway ramps" is okay, but your whole argument about "WP makes negative comments if its well supported" is quite laughable. Labeling a ramp "abandoned" is not "negative" but clearly states that the ramp is abandoned, no longer used. Now tell me how that is "negative" against the "government"? A rerouting could have occured, or the ramp may have been realigned, or there was community opposition. You have no idea, so don't go out and label all "abandoned ramps" as negativity towards this "government." Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that is ugly looking and seems like a waste of taxpayer's money (if truly abandoned) is negative. To say that it is for sure abandoned, hence negative reflection on the community/government, would require proper proof. An aerial photo doesn't prove abandonment, only lack of completion at a given point in time. Crum375 18:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who said ugly? Not me. Where in the article (except for the one road in Quebec talking about striping) does it say ugly? Or unsightly? Who said "waste of taxpayer's (sic) money"? Where in the article does it say this? Nowhere that I can see. For someone to make the leap to say it's "ugly" or a "waste of taxpayers' money" takes, well, ... a leap. If you have a problem with the wording, change that. But let's not scrap the article. Ufwuct 18:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in some cases, building the intial ramps is probably cheaper if there is a high probability that the connecting road will be built. If you're doing a construction project on one freeway, it's likely a lot less expensive to built the connections (the ramps) from road #1 to road #2 while doing construction work on road #1 so that road #1 doesn't have to be partially shut down again when road #2 is eventually built. If the DOT of that state and leaders were under the impression that building road #2 was a virtual certainty, then building the ramps first makes more economic sense. Ufwuct 18:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought this was one of those things that are obvious, at least to me it was. Are you saying that to you the abandoned stubs are not ugly, nor a waste of money? Crum375 18:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it's obvious, but POV? Maybe your POV? Has anyone else used the words ugly or waste of money other than you? I'm suggesting that we describe a ramp as ... (see my bulleted list above)... as it is. If you make the leap that it's ugly and a waste of money, that's your prerogative, but not the result of wording in the article, nor any editor's words on this talk page. Ufwuct 18:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that to you the clearly abandoned ones are not ugly nor a waste of money? Crum375 18:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• First, no I'm not saying that and did not say that.
• Second, regarding ugliness: who cares if I think it's ugly?!? If a reliable source shows significant community opinion that it is ugly, then we can mention it. Otherwise, it's totally irrelevant and should be worded in a way that prevents making a judgment regarding the aesthetic qualities of these structures in a general or on a case-by-case basis.
• Third, regarding "waste of money": It depends on the case. Construction projects in general have contingency plans based on the difficulty of construction or significance of (environmental, social, economic, etc.) impacts based on different alternatives and also on the future political atmosphere (e.g. Who will be in office X years from now when the project will require important permits? Are there any politically powerful people (or "squeaky wheels") in the path of the proposed project, regardless of the significance of impacts to those people)? They make the best decisions possible based on the information they have at they time regarding whether or not a project will proceed (in this case, road #2 (see above)). If there's an 80% chance that road #2 will be built and the costs of building the ramps (from road #1 to road #2) now are less than the costs of building the ramps later once the area has grown in population and traffic (keep in mind that you have to shut down road #1 once again), then I would say it probably makes sense to take the gamble and build the ramps now. Nowadays, schedule analysis in construction projects is much more sophisticated than it was 40 years ago, so there's not as much "gambling" inherent in this scenario. So, to sum up, it depends on each circumstance. If we have reliable sources that analyze the costs in depth or that show that significant community opinion (in the area of the ramps) believes the ramps were a waste of money, let's add it. Otherwise, my opinion and your opinion are irrelevant, as this is an encyclopedia and not a blog. Ufwuct 19:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)My point is not that we need to say in the article that "ghost ramps are ugly" or waste of money, although I am sure we could get a reputable source to say that if we wanted to. My point is simply that calling a structure or a construction project 'abandoned' is negative, at least to most people, and hence can only be done on WP article space if there is proper sourcing for saying so. Crum375 19:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't say things without proper sourcing regardless of whether they are negative. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I said thirteen edits ago, the wording depends on the circumstances. These statements don't need sources because some people might think they are negative. These statements need sources for the simple fact that they are statements in an encyclopedia. Wouldn't you agree? Ufwuct 19:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Night Gyr, it appears we are saying the exact same thing, but I didn't see your comment first because of an edit conflict. Ufwuct 19:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The negative aspect of the statements does have some implications in WP. Yes, everything needs good sources, but we tend to be more strict and require better sources when a negative statement, that can be perceived as offensive to someone or some group is made. Also, in the case of non-negative statements some have made the argument of "let's leave the statement in the article, and hope that some future editor will add a source". I personally don't buy that, but in the case of a negative statement it's even more unacceptable. So yes, they all require sources, but negatives require better sources, and they stay out unless well sourced. Crum375 19:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a Biography of a living person. The ramp will not get offended and it is extremely unlikely that the builder or designer of these ramps or highway projects will get offended either. It's just an abandoned ramp, not an abandoned area, or an abandoned person or group of people, or an abandoned city. So I would be surprised if residents of the areas in question get offended either. In some cases (e.g. Portland or San Francisco), people see these "abandoned ramps" as a source of pride...a neighborhood "saved", sticking it to the man, etc., etc. "Abandoned" ≠ a negative statement. So far, you are the only one making this argument. I have already proposed removing some of the unsourced and least credible statments and putting unsourced statments on Talk:Ghost ramp. Those statements can remain there and gradually be readded as we get sources. I would hope that this should satisfy your desires to get "negative" statements out of the article space, not that I think such a thing is necessary because the statement are "negative". Rather, they should be stored on the talk page because they are simply unsourced. Ufwuct 20:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree the offensiveness and liability to WP are not BLP-like and fairly minor, so I agree that temporary storage of unsourced items in Talk space is fine. Crum375 20:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good. We may have to put 90% of the items on the talk page (or perhaps a sub-talk page) to start out, but if that is necessary to save the article, I wouldn't have any major objections. There are a few sources as refs, a few other non-satellite embedded references, and a few articles that have wikilinks to other sourced articles, so the entire article would not likely disappear. Perhaps I will propose this as an alternative to deletion. Ufwuct 20:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: How about "unused provisions for highways"? It could also mention unused underpasses that were verifiably meant for highways. I was thinking about the provisions for the North-South Rail Link under the Big Dig, but of course that's for a rail line rather than a highway. --NE2 21:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Actually, if it's to be moved at all, it should be to stub ramp, the synomym that has been used in legal cases (see above), and refer the term "ghost ramp" as a synonym for "stub ramp." The list has gotten longer since this was put to AfD, and the problem is not the verifiability issue as to whether a picture of a ghost ramp/stub ramp is OR (if it's a stub, it's a stub regardless of history) but whether the picture actually shows a stub/ghost ramp in the first place as I've had difficulty seeing actual stub ramps in some of the linked pictures, even at great magnification. 147.70.242.40 22:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I found many references to the use of "ghost ramp" and some definations. Yeah, they may not be straight out of a dictionary, but for all intents and purposes, they work. If not, then I can list a lot of Wikipedia articles that would need to be deleted: dict useage useage useage useage dict useage, etc. The list goes on an on. The sheer amount searched in the Google Groups archive, at over 5800, is enough evidence alone. 911 for stub ramp alone, 322 in MTR alone [5]. 421 for dead ramp. The uses not only in "roadgeek" and transit related groups, but from many general forums, web-sites, etc. showcase the widespread terminology outside of the strict confines of said "roadgeek" - which itself is a loose term. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I do a groups search on the phrase "ghost ramp" (rather than the individual words), I get 127 hits (with another 421 for "ghost ramps"), which are almost entirely from misc.transport.road or rec.sport.pinball (different topic), 7 for "stub ramp", and nothing on-topic for "dead ramp". I guess that shows that the m.t.r folks preferentially use "ghost ramp", but I'm not sure that's a persuasive argument as to the name of the article here. --Mr Wednesday 06:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other uses of ghost ramps outside of the groups on numerous web-sites should indicate that it is commonly used. Not to the greatest extent, but it is referenced on numerous web-sites that deal with transportation, highways in specific, where anyone who is reading the body of the text can find contextual clues as to what "ghost ramp" indicates. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Let's consider this discussion closed. No new points have been made in several days as all possible options have been exhausted. 5 for delete versus 9 for keep. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Full tally:
  • 1 for Weak Delete
  • 3 for Delete
  • 1 for Strong Delete
  • 1 for Weak Keep
  • 6 for Keep
  • 2 for Strong Keep
  • 1 for Neutral

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.