- List of future or partially complete Interstates in North Carolina (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Page was deleted on the basis that the information was copy-paste on the page, which was fixed in later edits. No Census had been reached at the point of deletion. DiscoA340 (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I forgot to mention that the final vote before deletion was 4-3, which is too close to reach a consensus. DiscoA340 (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It's customary to notify the closer when you propose to appeal a deletion here; I'll take your failure to do that as an inadvertent oversight.
We don't use head-counts for assessing outcomes of deletion debates. Only one contributor was an unqualified keep supporter; the remainder were leaning merge. The thing is, many merge outcomes don't actually get performed by anyone; instead, the article sits around tagged for merging for months or years, and eventually someone takes the tag off. It's clear that the consensus of the debate is that there should not be an article at this title. In the event that someone is actually ready, willing, and able to perform the merger rather than talk about it, I have already said in my closure that the content can be restored under a redirect if such a person comes forward. Endorse own closure. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to initiate the merger around a week ago. But the edit was reverted by someone else on List of Interstate Highways in North Carolina. DiscoA340 (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The "merger" was poorly executed. Before there was a very neat organization that follows most other states' Interstate lists' structure (including a few promoted to Featured List). Highways are listed by their classification: primary (two-digit) Interstates, auxiliary (three-digit) Interstates and the Interstate business routes. Everything was listed in those respective tables: former, current and future. The tables used a set of templates to produce standardized output.
- After, we had separate tables for "partially complete" primary, "partially complete" auxiliary and decommissioned highways. None of that was needed as it removed the ability to sort a single primary Interstate table by length or commissioning dates. Readers trying to find the oldest/newest highway or figure out how they rank by length would have to consult two tables. Even worse for the auxiliary Interstates, they'd have to consult three! Imzadi 1979 → 03:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The closer indicated it would be fine to ask for the article to be restored under the redirect. That's enough to manage the merge if that's what you want to do. I'd have preferred a merge closure, but what was done is within discretion. If you need help navigating WP:REFUND let me know. Hobit (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The OP did ask at REFUND [1] but since they obviously wanted the result of the AfD overturned rather than a merge I referred them here instead. Hut 8.5 18:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. Fair. That said, if they are willing to agree to use it just for the merge, I'd say we should let them do that. Hobit (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as a valid conclusion by the closer. It is not necessary to decide whether another conclusion would have also been valid. It should be noted that at least one of the delete statements was emphatic, saying:
Indeed, I really do mean delete . That and the other opinions are sufficient for this to have been a valid conclusion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus 1) trajectory was more keep/merge-heavy towards the end of the discussion. 2) Delete-but-merge-some-of-the-content sucks as an incoherent !vote and should have been either counted as merge or discarded entirely and Doncram called this out, and 3) pernom is, well, WP:PERNOM. I think a merge or redirect would have been a reasonable read of the consensus was well, but neither keep nor delete were really on the table. Jclemens (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse—there was nothing useful to merge into the other article. To wit, the other article is (List of Interstate Highways in North Carolina), by design, a set of three tables (primary/two-digit Interstates, auxiliary/three-digit Interstates, Interstate business routes), and this list here was prose sections with small infoboxes of content initially copied from the individual highway articles and then later rewritten. Every Interstate Highway that already exists is already listed in those tables, and this "partially completed" stuff is already discussed in the individual articles. Every confirmed future highway is already listed in the appropriate tables in the article and has content in specific individual articles already (either an article already about the future Interstate, or a redirect to a section of the article on the existing highway that will be upgraded to an Interstate). In short, nothing to merge, non-useful search term, so no need to even retain as a redirect. Imzadi 1979 → 03:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, the point of the article was to list said routes in a single page to give light to them. The page was no different to List of future Interstate Highways and is almost carbon copy likeness to it, just about NC solely (Which is needed for the state). The issue of copy paste was rightfully brought up and quickly fixed. The people that supported deletion acted like the public know the information in this article by heart and would not need to have a list to know every future interstate in North Carolina. Using the argument that this information is found on each route page and is not needed to be in list form would mean there is no need for List of future Interstate Highways as it literally does the same thing. Not to mention the fact the same article was nominated for deletion on almost the same reasons almost a decade ago. DiscoA340 (talk) 03:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- They're already all listed on a single page: List of Interstate Highways in North Carolina. Those that are proposed and not yet designated are listed with orange backgrounds in the appropriate tables wit an establishment date of "proposed". Those that have already been designated on some roadway segment are listed with the date they were first designated. This is how all of the other states' list articles work. There's nothing special about North Carolina that warrants a deviation from standard practices; they are far from the only state to have future Interstates. I-69 is still being built southward from Indianapolis, I-11 is still being built southward from Las Vegas, I-14 is still being built across the South, etc. Imzadi 1979 → 03:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally don't believe in supervoting in a forum like this but I do wish to point out that my vote was to delete, and not in any way, shape, or form to merge any content from what was ultimately a content fork. --Rschen7754 05:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, following the requirement of Lists, if any of the partial interstates appear to be notable, either a separate page can be created on that or it can be added to a suitable existing List. The AfD discussion was very obvious towards achieving a clear consensus of Delete. The closure was also reasonable. Nothing significant was brought by the DRV requester to call for overturn. Chirota (talk) 07:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|