Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. Route 199 in California

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 U.S. Route 199. There is certainly enough information in these two articles that warrents moving them into the other article. (X! · talk) · @823 · 18:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Route 199 in California, U.S. Route 199 in Oregon

The only content that is not included in U.S. Route 199 (besides the junctions list) is the history section. However just about everything in the history section applies to the whole route, not just the California/Oregon portion. Rschen7754 (T C) 06:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remerge - this highway is short enough that it doesn't need to be split by state. --NE2 06:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to U.S. Route 199. Should never have been split. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 08:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to US 199. Unnessecary content fork. Dough4872 (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (at least to U.S. Route 199 in California) The article's history section in particular is more detailed and has more references than what was covered in the main article US 199 - a mishmash between California and Oregon segments. If you believe this article needs far improvement, we should all know there's a reason for "peer review". Mgillfr (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for a separate article on US 199 in CA. The route as a whole is relatively short and can be entirely covered in one decent article. Dough4872 (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is NE2 (talk · contribs)'s crummy version of it - with lots of bolded words in places where it shouldn't be bolded, a voilation of MOS:BOLD. And at least the coverage in the history section of US 199 (CA) is more detailed. If the California article is kept, then I'll find the necessary references that aren't there in the article currently. Mgillfr (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bolded words are the names of historic routes that were encompassed by the highway. They are bolded because pages with those titles redirect to that page. This is actually in accordance with USRD's MOS (see WP:USRD/MOS#History), it does not directly contradict the main MOS either (see MOS:BOLD, which is generally phrased positively and does not make any prohibition of this formatting.Synchronism (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, MOS:BOLD states only in rare circumstances should bold text exist outside of the lead section. Alternate titles should be bolded, yes. However, the ones notable enough to bold should be in the lead, IMO.Dave (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that bolding should not be used excessively. I'm a bit confused though; those guidelines make no mention of notability. Do you disagree with WP:USRD/MOS#History or my characterization of MOS:BOLD being in accord with WP:USRD/MOS#History?Synchronism (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that sentence in WP:USRD/MOS#History. However, I do recognize that is my opinion and others may disagree. To the best of my knowledge nobody has nominated an article for FAC with bolding in the history section. However I do believe when that day comes, the reviewers will request the bolding be taken out of all sections but the lead. Someday we'll find out.Dave (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quite the same, but Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern Railway survived an FA review after a complete rewrite that included bolding in the history. --NE2 05:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks NE2, good find, and well done in saving the article. So there is precedent, fair enough.Dave (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If an article has enough information, why can't this article stay? Obviously, this article has more coverage of info than US 6, US 95, and US 97, and those three articles get to stay. Mgillfr (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bunch of fluff to make the article look bigger. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So how come California segments of US 6, US 95, and US 97 get to stay but have no fluff or detailed info whatsoever? 03:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

All of those routes are nationwide routes where it is beneficial to split the main article. US 199 is such a small route that it is not. In truth, this is a *horrible* argument you are using - you're saying "Well why do these articles get to have state detail articles?" when all the ones you mention are main U.S. Routes and you're trying to defend the splitting of a secondary U.S. Route article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean secondary as in 3-digit, then what about US 101 and US 395? Mgillfr (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean secondary as in 3-digit; I mean secondary as what is not on {{U.S. Routes}}. US 101 is actually a primary route. 395 is an exception only because it is super long. Do I really have to explain this to you? (If the answer is yes, you probably should not be editing, or at least editing road articles). --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is my philosophy is that if a road is in two or more states, than you can create a state-detailed article for each state, right? Mgillfr (talk) 03:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is against WP:USRD/NT. It needs to be in three or more states, and the portion in each state has to be substantial. Otherwise we get crap like Interstate 95 in the District of Columbia. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By three or more states, can we do it to U.S. Route 491 if we want to? (not that i'm planning to, though, just asking) Mgillfr (talk) 03:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case it's a bad idea as the Utah portion is extremely short, and this is a desert highway with relatively little occurring over its length. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, US 491 is a specific example listed of a route that should not be split.Dave (talk) 01:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (preferably delete since no one is likely to look for these titles). Article is misguided and has no encyclopedic value over U.S. Route 199. Johnuniq (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Content appears decent at first glance, but would be better off incorporated into the U.S. Route 199 article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Sub articles are redundant to the main article. The main article is no where near long enough to merit splitting into subs. Also per the guideline at WP:USRD/NT under normal circumstances a route of this length would not be split into sub articles.Dave (talk) 00:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — The article should not have been split as the parent article isn't long enough to support the split. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - The split is unnecessary, all the information can be contained neatly in one place. A single page location is preferable to readers and editors alike, given the road's short length and the historical interconnectedness of the two state's segments.Synchronism (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2009 (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.