Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California State Route 30

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 Boldly redirected per consensus. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

California State Route 30

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

The information can be covered in Interstate 210 and State Route 210 (California) since the two roads have a shared history, and because State Route 30 no longer exists. Rs chen 7754 01:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as content was already merged. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Interstate 210 and State Route 210 (California) since the info is there. ---Dough 48 72 02:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as above, to Interstate 210 and State Route 210 (California). ^Pepper∙_piggle 03:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ten Pound Hammer. Article may have been unmerged in bad faith. --Fredddie ™ 03:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to I-210/SR-210; what was SR-30 is now I-210/SR-210. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above – Typical method of operation for U.S. Road articles is to have old route numbers redirect to the current route article. This is especially true in cases where a route is renumbered and having two separate articles for the current and former route numbers would be quite redundant, as is the case here. CA SR 30 was already a redirect of this type, and by all accounts should have stayed that way. --LJ (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per everyone else. Dew Kane (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and others. It's standard operating procedure to redirect former routes that were wholly or substantially supplanted by another to the route that now occupies its routing or corridor. – T M F 12:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2010 (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.