Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A2199 road (2nd nomination)

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 redirect‎ to A roads in Zone 2 of the Great Britain numbering scheme. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A2199 road

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Per last AfD, this just doesn't meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Boleyn, the last AfD discussion was in January 2012 (almost 12 years ago). The article has improved massively since then if you compare revisions. Roads4117 (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and previous AfD. No coverage in reliable sources, including its better known name of Croxted Road, neither of which appears to be a reliable redirect term. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All this article needs is some more citations to reliable sources (like Google Maps) and some more information on it. This does definitely have potential. I would be open to the idea of moving it to a draft, and make changes over there. Roads4117 (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google Earth doesn't count towards notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back and WaddlesJP13, according to WP:GOOGLEMAPS Google Maps and Google Street View may be useful for some purposes, including finding and verifying geographic coordinates and other basic information like street names. However, especially for objects like boundaries (of neighborhoods, allotments, etc.), where other reliable sources are available they should be preferred over Google Maps and Google Street View. According to this, you are allowed to use this to verify street names, coordinates etc. Roads4117 (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Roads4117: But does it verify notability? Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is that it can be used for that, but consensus is also that it doesn't count towards notability. Lots of sources can be used which don't count towards notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Requires more participation. As an aside, "some more citations to reliable sources (like Google Maps)" - Google Maps is not considered generally reliable, per WP:GOOGLEMAPS.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Strewth, we deleted Earlham Road in Norwich despite it's having a sunken bus, a cathedral, a university, a plethora of listed buildings and some historical documents. All we have for A2199 is a discussion of how we pass petrol stations rapidly followed by bridges, with the occasional roundabout for added excitement. If we have nothing to say about this road, then we shouldn't say it. We are simply not a bollard-by-bollard lamp-post detailed road description service. Elemimele (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elemimele this page is absolutely no different to 99% of three-digit or four-digit articles on Wikipedia. If you delete this page, then you would have to delete the rest, otherwise it would be unfair this article gets special treatment compared to the rest, and also it would be a complete utter waste of time to delete hundreds and thousands of articles. This message also applies to Ritchie's comments above. Roads4117 (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If what you say is true it wouldn't be a waste of time at all, improving wikipedia is not a waste of time. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back Yes but it would take years to do it and there is it would be easier and quicker just to improve somebody's work rather than destroy it. Roads4117 (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The argument you are making is WP:OTHERSTUFF. Keeping this article because deleting other non notable articles would take time is not a policy reason to keep. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have no deadline. If its non-notable its not improvable to the point of being a high quality article by definition. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for my !vote delete to be treated as a redirect as suggested by others. @Roads4117:, (1) I'm not convinced that a multitude of small articles is the right way to present information. It is often better to bring a lot of not-very-notable things together into one over-arching article, and (2) ultimately we're an encyclopaedia, not a database. We're here to take subjects on which multiple people have written, and summarise them for readers who want an overview. I'm afraid that for any road article, if a road hasn't been written-about in reasonable depth by several people, there is nothing to summarise. Information like that will no doubt find its corner of the internet, but this isn't it. Elemimele (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elemimele No, that isn't so! Earlham Road was already kept twice. First time as a straight keep and recently as no consensus. I remember because I participated in the 2023 debate. In 2005 I was less active in AfDs. gidonb (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A roads in Zone 2 of the Great Britain numbering scheme: per result of previous AfD. Nothing has changed to make this road notable since then. Owen× ☎ 15:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Owen× and there is nothing notable with 99% of other three-digit and four-digit road articles. Like I said earlier in response to Elemimele's comments, why should this get special treatment compared to everything else. Roads4117 (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there is nothing notable with 99% of other three-digit and four-digit road articles they should be deleted or merged, why should they get special treatment compared to everything else? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A roads in Zone 2 of the Great Britain numbering scheme Looking for any articles on the history of the road or any past or future road projects hasn't yielded anything other than routine coverage of run-of-the-mill events that happen anywhere. Such coverage is rare on relatively insignificant roads like this. As for using Google Maps as a source like Roads4117 mentioned, the issue isn't that there aren't any sources as much as there aren't any sources that prove notability. Google Maps wouldn't really prove anything other than that the road exists. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect, just not seeing the sort of coverage that indicates notability and there are no compelling arguments for notability presented otherwise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2023 (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.