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 no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC) reply

List of Intrastate U.S. Highways

List of Intrastate U.S. Highways (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Topic is not notable for its own article. By adding simple notes to the existing list, the information is still present in the encyclopedia. Unlike single-state primary Interstates, there is no "element of surprise" or any apparent contradiction of terms to have a US Highway only serve a single state. Imzadi 1979  → 03:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Any federal highway that serves only one state in the Union certainly qualifies as a "surprise" by any definition. Greggens ( talk) 04:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Correction: Technically, U.S. highways are not federal, but they are national.

• Delete trivia. -- Rs chen 7754 03:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment—just to clarify, there are third-party reliable sources commenting on the concept of an "intrastate Interstate Highway"; the Orlando Sentinel published this article on that concept. We would need some sources of that sort to make a case that intrastate US Highways are notable. Imzadi 1979  → 04:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep - The fact that AASHTO has a policy against creating new intrastate U.S. highways serves as proof that it is indeed a notable topic. Greggens ( talk) 04:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Trivial, could warrant a mention in the United States Numbered Highways article, but a list is overkill. I would also consider looking at whether or not we need the intrastate Interstate list too. That information can easily be merged into the Interstate Highway System article instead of being presented as a separate list. Dough 48 72 04:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep or merge - The info is useful. One person's trivia is another's important information. Merging as suggested above might be the best solution. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 05:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • @ VMS Mosaic: what is now the "overview" paragraph was lifted from United States Numbered Highways, the lead article on the system, and the notes in List of United States Numbered Highways has all of the intrastate entries noted. That list article has the paragraph on the single-state US Highways as well. Imzadi 1979  → 06:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
    • I'm I missing something in what you pointed me at? I see notes spread thru a long list, but I see nothing which easily shows me all the intrastate highways. Manually going thru a long list of notes to find them is unacceptable. If that is your definition of Merge, then I change my comment to Keep. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 07:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
      • And what sort of use would this information be? Not even the " roadfans" are voting to support this in a general-purpose encyclopedia. This also fails WP:GNG. -- Rs chen 7754 07:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
        • It is not for us to decide what use Wikipedia is put to. This list passes WP:DISCRIMINATE. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 08:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
          • ...which is an essay. -- Rs chen 7754 08:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
            • An essay which is kept in order to give insight into interpreting the relevant guidelines. Where do you disagree with the essay? VMS Mosaic ( talk) 08:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
              • I can't tell, because you have not explained how it passes it. -- Rs chen 7754 08:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
              • Sorry, but I'm not going to waste my time explaining something which is prima facie. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 08:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
          • ( edit conflict) If you meant WP:INDISCRIMINATE, the section of "WP:What Wikipedia is not", which is a policy section that says "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources". No independent sources have taken note of the fact that some US Highways fail to cross a state line along their routes, unlike the case with Interstate Highways (as demonstrated above). The only sources that can be pointed to about this concept come from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), which determines the numbering policies for the US Highway System. Lots of highways fail to cross a state line, and several do from otherwise national roadway systems like the National Highway System. In other words, based on the reliable sources, it's trivia. Imzadi 1979  → 09:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep: There is a page about intrastate Interstate highways. Shouldn't there be one about intrastate U.S. highways, as well? This is an interesting concept that should be explored further. Allen (Morriswa) ( talk) 10:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Perhaps we should start a page about state capitals with no connection to the Interstate Highway System, then. -- Rs chen 7754 10:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Sounds like a great idea to me. Is there an article about state capitals with no connection to the U.S. highway system? Allen (Morriswa) ( talk) 10:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply

You're missing the point, keeping this article sets a bad precedent by allowing indiscriminate lists that are not backed up by the WP:GNG. -- Rs chen 7754 10:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply

What do you mean, it "sets a bad precedent"? Also, what is an "indiscriminate list", as you put it? And how are lists like this not notable? Allen (Morriswa) ( talk) 10:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Allen, we all know you haven't met a road-related article, template or category you didn't think should be kept from deletion. My last comments set out the policy reasons that this would be a bad precedent. Unlike the article on intrastate Interstates, for where there are quite a few independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the topic, there are none for "intrastate U.S. Highways". Our policy says that the data has to be put into context by those types of sources, and the only ones I can find that talk about "intrastate U.S. Highways" are roadgeek fansites or discussion boards, which are not reliable sources. Imzadi 1979  → 10:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Also, saying that because there is one for the Interstates that there should be one for the US Highways is a classic case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That essay says that sometimes it is helpful to consider other similar cases to decide whether or not to delete a pages. However, there is a key difference between these two cases: the other one has the requisite coverage in independent reliable sources, and this one does not. That difference breaks the equivalence between the two topics and negates the usefulness of the comparison. (Also, we don't need this article to have a comprehensive coverage of the topic, List of United States Numbered Highways already indicates which ones are "intrastate", including a few historical examples that were omitted from this new list. Imzadi 1979  → 10:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep and improve, per Wikipedia's Five pillars, the encyclopedia also functions as a gazetteer. NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply

  Sure, but how is this notable? T C N7JM 13:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete – Eh...forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't this info already here in a larger capacity in the main list of US highways? And it's really easy to find the intrastate list within that list too. You just sort the notes column alphabetically, scroll down to the I's and there you are. Absolutely no reason to keep this list, as this isn't a particularly notable topic either. T C N7JM 13:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep At first glance, the article appears as trivia or a curiosity, but perhaps there are uses. For example, I can imagine someone seeking this information to find US highways that perhaps they perceive as unnecessary, frivolous, or deserving designation as a state highway instead. In addition, as mentioned above, it is notable that such routes are no longer possible to create; the routes that remain intrastate have a unique aspect compared to other present or future routes. The article explains this notability fairly well. The notability, however, is not strong, and I concede that the information is available in other articles. I would accept deletion mostly because of a lack of sources citing the intrastates as notable. Scarlettail ( talk) 16:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep because the existence of specific policies aimed at eliminating these roads sufficiently establish them as a meaningful topic within the broader subject of US highways. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 18:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep or merge somewhere given the AASHTO policies to eliminate these. And get rid of those silly "staff" entries in the references. Interestingly, US 57 was created long after the policy was implemented; some time ago I made a list here of all that have existed since 1937. -- NE2 22:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete This article isn't necessary. All the U.S. routes listed are in the list of U.S. routes. Thus, this article should be deleted. Philroc ( talk) 00:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete Merge and delete the redirect. If you add a column to List of United States Numbered Highways showing the number of states each route passes through, this page becomes redundant. – Fredddie ™ 06:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Very Weak Keep Its been pointed out several time that it is unusual for a US highway to be located entirely within a single state and that such US highways can no longer be created. There seems to be a very weak point for having such a list and the article does in fact demonstrate why it might be notable. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 06:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Morriswa. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chinwag) @ 17:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delte' per Imzaldi Secret ^account 17:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete If there is an encyclopedic purpose for providing this information, it can be obtained from the long existing article with the list of U.S. Highways. Where I disagree with the nomination statement is List of intrastate Interstate Highways is an identical situation and should also be nominated for deletion. I don't understand those that are voting to delete this page but defending the existence of the other. The fact that the occasional newspaper has reported on the ironic concept does not necessarily make it any less trivial. Major news media often sprinkles oddities, trivial details and other light hearted stories in news coverage, and the linked Orlando Sentinel is clearly written in tongue-in-cheek oddity reporting style. Dave ( talk) 08:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete We already have List of United States Numbered Highways and thus don't need a duplicate. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 18:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Sources justify the separate article, the existence of articles on all US national routes does not obviate the need for this article, and in any event, we aren't really talking about a "deletion" issue, just an organization of content issue.-- Milowent • ^{has spoken} 13:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep Above editors have already demonstrated that the topic meets WP:GNG, and it is of encyclopedic interest as a policy issue, especially regarding the distribution of federal highway funds in the United States. Chubbles ( talk) 02:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • @ Chubbles: federal highway funds are not impacted by that policy, period. These highways are state highways that carry a number assigned through the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, not the federal government. These highways would be just as eligible for federal funding if they carried other numbers. Imzadi 1979  → 04:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC) reply
    • And that, indeed, is an argument that might be made regarding federal highway funding policies! You are making my case for me. Chubbles ( talk) 04:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC) reply
      • When your argument is based on WP:OR, yes. -- Rs chen 7754 04:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC) reply
        • How federal highway funds are distributed is not a matter of original research; that said, Wikipedia's road articles tend to focus much more on history than fiscal matters, and I encourage editors who are experts in the area to expand our sourcing and coverage of such matters, including in this article. Chubbles ( talk) 04:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC) reply
          • @ Chubbles: no, I did not make your case for you. To wit: if US 46, which is a US Highway only within the state of New Jersey, were to be "downgraded" from US Highway status to state route status, the level of possible funding from the federal government would not change. The more important metric for determining federal funding is not US Highway status, but National Highway System status, and those are different items. U.S. Route 41 in Michigan is only on the NHS from the state line north to Houghton; from Houghton north, the highway is not on the NHS. M-28, a state highway, is on the NHS in its entirety. The only place where NHS status overlaps with a highway designation is with the Interstates; all Interstates are automatically included on the NHS as a matter of definition. US Highway status simply has no bearing here. Imzadi 1979  → 18:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC) reply
            • Excellent, excellent! The site very much lacks information about this very topic, especially in the most likely places where one might look for it, such as right here. It would be great if you could source this information and add it to the article under discussion! Chubbles ( talk) 20:29, 17 March 2014 (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.