From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Sandstein 10:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply

List of state trunkline highways in Michigan serving parks

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

List of state trunkline highways in Michigan serving parks (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no cited premise for the scope of the list. In short, the only thing tying these together is that some highways provide access to state or national parks. However, there aren't any sources for any systematic scheme by the state for highways connected to state parks. Unlike List of state highways serving Utah state parks and institutions where the majority of the entries on the list don't have independent articles because such articles would be too short to be sustainable, the entries on this list are all GAs (or an FA).

TLDR: at best, this could be a category, but at worst, it shouldn't exist at all. Imzadi 1979  → 01:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Overly specific categorization, there is nothing distinguishing about these roads other than what is nearby or reliable sources that treat this as a unified topic. Reywas92 Talk 02:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. -- Rs chen 7754 21:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per Reywas92. This article completely fails WP:LISTN. I don't see any independently established premise for this article's scope. Newshunter12 ( talk) 01:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It is actually a valid list-article, consisting of summary descriptions about numerous highways which each have separate individual articles. There is substantial, reliable sourcing. I.e. this meets wp:GNG and it is also appropriate as a list-article complementing a category (see wp:CLNT). I don't see any valid reasoning suggested above about why this should not be kept; the above discussion seems like "I don't like it" reasoning to me. Also it seems complementary to other coverage of highways in the state, including List of state trunkline highways in Michigan (overlaps, scope-wise, but has different level of detail). -- Doncram ( talk) 21:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Where does this end? Should we create a list, one for each county in Michigan (83)? Should we create a list for all of the state highways that provide access to schools? stadiums? ferries? etc. -- Rs chen 7754 22:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC) reply
        • Nonsense, there is no rampage of list-article creation. This seems like a sensible collection, although it is definitely surprising to me, that so many of these highways were created/devoted to address access into parks in Michigan. This seems well focused and well-developed list-article. I don't get the antipathy and I think fear-mongering about "where does this end" is silly. -- Doncram ( talk) 22:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Where is the sourcing for the scope? The individual highways pass GNG, but where are the "reliable sources independent of the subject[s]" collecting them together in such a fashion? I can find outside sources that collect all of the state highways together, but none that collect them on this basis. Imzadi 1979  → 00:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply
        • Sure, it could be tagged for more coverage about the scope, being trunk highways serving parks, which is a surprising-to-me large topic. Since the list-article exists and was created by one or more persons, it appears to me that the scope/topic is valid. -- Doncram ( talk) 22:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I object to the deletion nominator's aggressive behavior related to this AFD. At the related article. At the related article, List of state trunkline highways in Michigan, they have twice deleted a "See also" link to the AFD topic list-article. With nonsensical edit summaries. With what appears to be a will to edit war and get their effing way. I don't know why they dislike the AFD topic list-article, or what their problem is otherwise, but it is my humble opinion (and I do speak from long experience with AFDs), that it is a terrible idea for deletion nominators to pull stunts like they are doing. Either to delete all incoming links or to edit down the subject article while the AFD is happening. If they "win" the AFD then yes, of course inbound links to the article would get deleted, and yes the content would get deleted. But for the AFD process to work properly, the community needs to see the AFD topic article and to see it in context, including how it is connected to and from other articles. The community is not helped by editors' trying to shortcut or subvert the process. To User:Imzadi1979, could you please now reconsider your action and restore the connection which you have twice deleted. Offhand, I tend to think this behavior indicates that the list-article should be Kept, although perhaps tagged for more development, and the idea of deletion should be put off for, say, a year. I don't like bullying, and I don't think it should be rewarded, and I think the general interest of the community would be served by closing this down and having all parties walk away for a good long time. -- Doncram ( talk) 22:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Two big additional problems are at work.
      1. M-93 predates Hartwick Pines State Park by six years, 1919 vs. 1927. M-109 and M-209 predate Sleeping Bear Dunes by decades, 1929 ("1920s") vs. 1970. M-201 doesn't connect to Leelanau State Park, and it was created in 1949 when the park wasn't created until 1964. Others on the list may have postdated the parks adjacent to the highways, but we really need some sourcing on this concept, which doesn't really exist.
      2. The other issue is that this list is way incomplete. Most state parks in Michigan are adjacent to some state highway. US 41 is next to JW Wells State Park, Van Riper State Park, Baraga State Park and Fort Wilkins State Park. M-26 passes Twin Lakes State Park, and M-107 ran into Porcupine Mountains State Park. US 2 is next to Bewabic State Park. US 23 is next to Tawas Point State Park, Harrisonville State Park, Sturgeon Point State Park, Rockport State Park, Thompson's Harbor State Park, PH Hoeft State Park, Cheboygan State Park and Old Mill Creek State Park. M-124 and M-106 intersect next to Walter J. Hayes State Park. That's just a sampling, and I could name a lot more without mentioning Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, the other highways in Sleeping Bear Dunes, the Keweenaw National Historic Park or Battle of the River Raisin National Battlefield.
    • So in short, the list doesn't have sourcing to establish that Michigan has any systematic scheme, like Utah did with a specific range of highway numbers, and it is under inclusive by omitting basically every other state or national park. Imzadi 1979  → 00:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Unneeded listcruft. These type of articles should only exist if they cover highways that do not have independent articles such as State highways serving Virginia state institutions. Dough 4872 00:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. So it is established that there are a number of similar list-articles covering state highways linking to parks or to other types of places (including List of state highways serving Utah state parks and institutions and State highways serving Virginia state institutions). Here, there are a surprising-to-me 16 state highways serving parks in Michigan. This kind of makes sense to me, because parks only function if they are accessible to the public, and often/usually there are not otherwise roadways into park-suitable wild areas. Sure, it would be good to develop more about the co-evolution of parks and highways in the state, with sources, but this is a natural topic. I and many readers of the great biography The Power Broker by Robert A. Caro happen to be more familiar with the co-evolution of parks and highways around New York City, spurred by Robert Moses, e.g. Robert Moses State Park (Long Island) and others which only came to exist as real parks with the development of parkways to them. But that co-evolution happened in Michigan and elsewhere is obvious, too.
Also there are factual issues of omissions suggested by Imzadi, but these could be addressed by editing in the article, and/or by Talk page discussion. Expanding the list-article to cover more would seem to make it even more obviously noteworthy. -- Doncram ( talk) 14:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
And it also seems to me that, nation-wide, there would be merit to systematic coverage, e.g. in a nation-wide list-article ( Highways in the United States serving parks and institutions (currently a red-link)) and perhaps Category:Highways in the United States serving parks and institutions. Because these seem obvious-to-me natural topics, and there may exist more substantial or accessible coverage at the national level, and there is efficiency in covering them all together. -- Doncram ( talk) 14:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
"Nonsense, there is no rampage of list-article creation." -- Rs chen 7754 18:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Huh? No one saying there was such an issue of too many, so I guess you are agreeing with me and you support more similar list-articles? Thanks. And, yes, there's List of state highways serving Utah state parks and institutions by the way too, and maybe there could/should be more, all unified by a nation-level list and a category system.
The Trailblazers: Brief History of the Direct Federal Highway Construction Program is one pretty good historical source on development of Federal highway building technology and the needs to serve national forests (presumably with more practical focus/design) and national parks (with more focus on scenic fitting), with mention of other types (former post roads, other).

-- Doncram ( talk) 23:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I certainly am not agreeing with you, but I see no further point to discussing the matter with you. -- Rs chen 7754 00:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Virginia appears to have a special numbering for highways that serve state institutions, specifically numbering them in the 300s, though I'm not sure that's a notable list topic either. Michigan however does not distinguish its highways in any way, and this is no different than a list of highways that serve state forests or state game areas or casinos. I don't see any inclusion criteria for this list, which has not only state parks but also national lakeshores and places that don't even appear to be parks at all, like the Garden Peninsula and former state parks. If there are no reliable sources that discuss highways that go to parks, etc., there should not be a Wikipedia article on it since WP:LISTN is not satisfied. The article on national highways is utterly irrelevant. Reywas92 Talk 06:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Per the deletion nomination's suggestion, there is merit in having a Michigan state category of these, so I went ahead and created Category:State highways in Michigan serving parks, which now contains 14 members. Perhaps more should be added. Also there are 2 highways covered in the list-articles which do not have separate articles. This also supports keeping the list-article. By reasoning of essay (or guideline?) wp:CLNT, it is very reasonable to have complementary coverage in list-articles and categories and navigation templates; the list-article can include references and photos and maps and coordinates and descriptions which can't be conveyed at the category or in a navigation template, and it can cover red-link items or items not deemed to need separate articles (also, by the way, heading off creation of separate articles for the more marginal items). -- Doncram ( talk) 14:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Talk about circular reasoning! You creation of a category for these does not mean the article automatically stays along with it. I also oppose the category, which contains some of the same original research as the article. For example, M-201 (Michigan highway) runs through the village of Northport but does not actually "serve" the nearby Leelanau State Park, rather it is one of a few roads that connect to another road that leads to the state park. State parks (and national parks) across the country are naturally located near roads across the country, and unless reliable sources find this to be remarkable, I see no reason why we should be coming up with our own such categorization and listing. Do we need to categorize Interstate 94 and Interstate 40 because they go to Theodore Roosevelt National Park and Petrified Forest National Park, respectively? What's the difference between Michigan parks "served by" Michigan highways vs. U.S. highways? Do we need a category and list saying U.S. Route 23 in Michigan goes through Hoeft State Park too? The incompleteness of this article shows how arbitrary and mundane it is that – WOW – people take roads to get places! M-119 (Michigan highway) goes to Petoskey State Park and M-123 (Michigan highway) goes through Tahquamenon Falls State Park, but I don't see any sources that find them worth comparing together in contrast to all the highways that go all other sorts of places. Reywas92 Talk 06:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and Partial Merge Unfortunately, the only place that appears to talk about these roads in this particular form is right here on Wikipedia, and every almost every road has its own article, so no content will be deleted. That being said, M-143 and M-213 do not have content elsewhere. I don't see any suitable merge candidates and there's not much content to merge anyways, but I would strongly encourage this content to be moved somewhere. SportingFlyer T· C 11:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete article and the category. This is listcruft. Serving state parks is not a defining feature of these highways. In my area, Iowa used to have highways that branched off of another state highway and they'd end at the front gate to state parks. There was nothing systematic about how they were numbered, some were even renumbered randomly; the state treated them the same as all other state highways. These highways among others were forcibly deleted from the state highway system in 2003, which is a defining feature for a list article. Sorry if I sound like I'm rambling. – Fredddie ™ 15:36, 2 May 2019 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_state_trunkline_highways_in_Michigan_serving_parks&oldid=895453777"