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 merge, if anything can be merged. I am redirecting this to List of Puerto Rico Highways so material can be found from the history. OR problems should be sorted out as part of any merge. Bduke (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three Digit System of Highways in Puerto Rico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Pure original research. The only citation offered is a map of Puerto Rico, and even though these general trends may be identifiable from that map, it doesn't necessarily follow that the numbers were intentionally assigned in this manner. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rican-related deletion discussions. jwillbur 00:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Enough said. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DJ Clayworth (talk) 05:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Puerto Rico Highways - whether or not the pattern was intentional, it clearly exists. We can say "routes in this range are in this region" without it being original research because we have a map that shows all routes. It doesn't make sense to put the information in a separate article though. --NE2 07:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per NE2. I was about to say what he said, pretty much word for word, but he beat me to it. Most of the articles on state highway systems in the US have a section on the numbering pattern, and the vast majority of these (as far as I've seen) are unreferenced. I haven't found the page on WSDOT's website yet that explains why the highways are numbered the way they are, probably because it doesn't exist. But any state map can be used as a reference to say that a pattern exists. That being said, calling it a "system" and having a separate article like this is neologism-ish, and largely unnecessary. When/if it is merged, it can probably be condensed a good deal. -- Kéiryn (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Asserting that such a pattern exists without a reference to back it up is still original research. If other state highway system articles include this sort of thing, then they need to have it removed also. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not original research to say "all three-digit routes beginning in 4 are in Foo County" if this is verifiable on a map. It's similarly not original research to say "North Bar is a town north of Bar" even if we don't have a source other than a map that shows that relation, or to say something as simple as what the highest route number in a state is. --NE2 16:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every highway system that has such a pattern has this "problem". Including Interstate Highway System#Auxiliary Interstates. -- Kéiryn (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, it doesn't, since the FHWA route log includes a spiel about the numbering system in its introduction, even including a graphic similar to the one in our article. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • (ec) Apologies. When I saw the way the reference was placed, and that it was pointing to "FHWA Route Log and Finder List", I made a false assumption that it was referencing just the list of routes. Turns out that isn't the route log, and does in fact explain the numbering system... FHWA really ought to rename that page... -- Kéiryn (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • United States Numbered Highways does have this "problem". As do the pages for Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey (mostly in the renumbering articles), New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota (references a personal page), Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. -- Kéiryn (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Texas doesn't have a numbering system. What page in particular are you referring to? --Holderca1 ^talk 20:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • "State Highways are generally assigned numbers between 1 and 365." --NE2 20:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Reworded sentence, it no longer implies that there will never be a SH 366. --Holderca1 ^talk 20:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • OK - that wasn't my objection though (but it is a good change). My point is that there's no difference between looking at a map or list and saying that the highest number is 365 and doing the same and saying that 9xx routes are all in the western part of the island. --NE2 20:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm a little sleepy at the moment, but I think there my thinking wasn't so much a "numbering system", but the description of the system(s) as a whole. Very little in #Types of state-numbered highways is referenced. -- Kéiryn (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • That article as a whole is in bad shape and in need of an overhaul, just haven't gotten around to it. --Holderca1 ^talk 20:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The United States Numbered Highways numbering system is referenced elsewhere, including The Roads that Built America by Dan McNichol and some papers by FHWA. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge elsewhere: Per nom. I took one look at this last night and my eyes began to bleed. seicer | talk | contribs 20:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Bleed because of it's WP:OR-ness, or because of it's ugliness? I agree that it's ugly, but there's a lot of mergeable content there, provided consensus says it's not OR. -- Kéiryn (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Format, prose, lack of sufficient information, etc. I think that this could be reused elsewhere at List of Puerto Rico Highways or perhaps split it off to something like List of State Highways in Kentucky. It's pretty bad when the article itself is depreciated with a section on 4-digit designations on an article regarding 3-digit designations. seicer | talk | contribs 20:42, 25 February 2008 (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.