Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 4011 (Volusia County, Florida)

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 to List of county roads in Volusia County, Florida. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

County Road 4011 (Volusia County, Florida)

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

Does not meet USRD notability guidelines or WP:GNG as a standalone article. Suggest merge into List of county roads in Volusia County, Florida. Admrboltz (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Per nom. Dough 48 72 20:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as I fully endorse the nomination rationale (a.k.a. "per nom"). Imzadi 1979 → 20:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom - unlike the roads with significant bridges, even this inclusionist isn't sure this one deserves its own article. Might have some historical notability, but that would be as Riverside Drive (Daytona Beach), not CR 4011. Are the road's former routes (US-1, ODH) enough to make it notable? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A former section of US Highway 1, former section of Dixie Highway, current section of Ormond Scenic Loop and Trail, which does meet USRD notability as a standalone article Gamweb (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article still needs secondary sources. All sources listed are primary. --Admrboltz (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - North of Ormond Beach, the local street name is still "Old Dixie Highway." Would you like me to take a photo of it for you? Gamweb (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Photos are not reliable sources. If the road was part of the Dixie Highway, then maybe that is a better target for merger. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would prefer to see it merged to Ormond Scenic Loop and Trail, which does not exist yet. Perhaps it can be redirected to the County List page temporarily until the Loop page is created. Gamweb (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, thats what I originally suggested. I am not asking for the article to be deleted, but to be merged into the list. If after someone creates the trail's page, then we can copy the data from the page history / list into the new trail article. --Admrboltz (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom as long as the article info is retained there. And why is this listed as an AfD and not a merge request? — AjaxSmack 21:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Previous merger and prod requests are quickly reverted by others, and this is a more enforceable venue. --Admrboltz (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The previous "merge" wasn't. It was a unilateral delete and redirect. — AjaxSmack 17:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or move to new name as suggested above, as long as there is an editor willing to work on it, which it looks like there is. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm interested and willing to work on an article about the block-long street that runs past my apartment. That is not a valid reason to keep (or create) and article that does not meet WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 02:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - How are you so sure this road is not notable? FieldMarine (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - From WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." I don't see any coverage in reliable sources beyond the fact that this road is on a map. Imzadi 1979 → 05:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are you basing your opinion there is not sufficient reliable sources from just Internet search? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I'm not. Imzadi 1979 → 06:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - How do access all the non-digitized works on the history of Volusia to be sure there are not sufficient reliable sources? FieldMarine (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It doesn't work that way. If you want to keep the article you must show that significant coverage in reliable published sources exists. (I think the above statement is a logical extension of WP:BURDEN.) -- Donald Albury 10:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. --Rs chen 7754 21:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. -- Donald Albury 10:54, 27 January 2011 (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.