Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstate 495 (North Carolina)
- 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 Delete--JForget 00:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Interstate 495 (North Carolina) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
The only reference given is a local proposal that has not seen anything on the state or national level. The link states that "Each affected MPO/RPO would have to formally agree...in order for NCDOT to submit the request for a “future” Interstate designation to the Federal Highway Administration in 2006." but it's now 2007, and nothing has happened. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, especially not an outdated one. NE2 12:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 16:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete until it's more than a proposal. /Blaxthos 17:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, someone's non-notable proposal. —Scott5114↗ 19:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per well stated reasons put forward by NE2. Edison 02:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the article is wrong (it's not proposed) and per NE2. --MPD T / C 03:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Son 18:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unless some more official sources can be provided, I say we nix it. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 01:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for the same reasons as that List of Proposed Interstate Highways article that we discussed last time. If not then Redirect this to that article. ----DanTD 04:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The list is of Interstates that are being seriously considered, with designations written into law or appearing on signs. This is a local proposal that got nowhere. --NE2 07:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The official website still maintains it as an active proposal, though. Perhaps it would be better off redirected to List of proposed auxiliary Interstate Highways instead. ----DanTD 14:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A website of a "regional business leadership group" that doesn't have control over any of the agencies that designate the routes or post signs. --NE2 14:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support a redirect. Why not redirect to Interstate 95 in North Carolina and mention it there? At leas then the information is here. --MPD T / C 05:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A website of a "regional business leadership group" that doesn't have control over any of the agencies that designate the routes or post signs. --NE2 14:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The official website still maintains it as an active proposal, though. Perhaps it would be better off redirected to List of proposed auxiliary Interstate Highways instead. ----DanTD 14:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The list is of Interstates that are being seriously considered, with designations written into law or appearing on signs. This is a local proposal that got nowhere. --NE2 07:47, 16 October 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.