Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/19th century turnpikes in Massachusetts

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. - Mailer Diablo 05:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

19th century turnpikes in Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Prodded as indiscriminate information; prod removed. This is mostly a long list of redlinks; all the blue links seem to be included in Category:Pre-freeway turnpikes in the United States (they make up most of the 21 articles in that category). This doesn't seem notable or useful to me. The article is orphaned. Propaniac 14:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the article below for deletion; it's another long list of redlinks, with no blue links at all. Propaniac 14:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

19th century turnpikes in Rhode Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Keep. You can see in the references that there's a whole book written about these (ISBN 0942147057). The abridged version is 428 pages, so there's clearly enough information to write an article about each. You should also learn what indiscriminate means. Limiting a list from all roads in Massachusetts to turnpikes that were chartered by the legislature, and on which a toll was charged, is very discriminate. --NE2 15:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I took and used "indiscriminate" to mean the inclusion of the list itself in Wikipedia; the list itself does discriminate, and my prod should perhaps have been clearer in my meaning. Propaniac 16:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just because they are mostly red links is not a reason for deletion. Many of the turnpikes are now state highways and can be redirected to specific highway articles. Also, as NE2 indicated, these road have significant history. If it helps, I am willing to create stubs and/or appropriate redirects for the entries in the list later this week since I can easily get a copy of the referenced book. --Polaron | Talk 15:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I want to clarify that it's not the redlinks, in themselves, that led me to nominate this article; it's that the list itself makes no assertion of why this content is notable, and obviously the items on the list cannot support the list's notability when the items have no articles themselves in which to make or imply such a statement. Propaniac 16:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, see no reason for deletion. Subject is notable and list is expanding. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 16:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (Edit Conflict)Keep. I agree with Polaron and NE2.

  The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. Plenty of articles exist that probably shouldn't. Equally, because articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they're missing before they're created, a lot of articles don't exist that probably should.

This is from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I think it's important, because you're suggesting that it should be deleted because the red links suggest that its not notable. I believe that based on NE2's argument, it is notable, but those articles just haven't been written yet. --myselfalso 16:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, by mentioning the red links, I don't mean that you are nominating this for deletion because of the red links; rather I'm responding to the argument "the items on the list cannot support the list's notability when the items have no articles themselves". --myselfalso 17:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but move to a "List of..." title. —Scott5114↗ 17:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- these roads are of potential historic interest, either as the forerunners of modern roads or as roads that were abandoned. This system (and the system in Rhode Island) probably isn't as historic as the National Road, but there's most likely history to be found in it. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has refs to satisfy WP:N and WP:A. Since the title implies more than a list, it would be good for the proponents of such articles to add some meat to the description of the turnpikes, such as, were they corduroy, gravel, cobbles, dirt, or what? What was the charge to use it? Edison 20:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. - Crockspot 05:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• By the way, the book has been scanned by Google Books: [1] --NE2 06:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep History of major transportation arteries is notable and does not need any claim of notability. Fg2 10:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are lots of reliable sources out there. Because all of these roads are historical, there is no need to have any claim of notability. Also supporting a move to a "List of..." article name. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 02:00, 16 May 2007 (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.