Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstate 73 in Michigan

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 and redirect to Interstate 73. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 73 in Michigan

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

Specifically WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR as this designation for an Interstate will never exist in Michigan (or Ohio for that matter). In 1998 the Michigan Department of Transportation closed all further studies into this proposed freeway. Its not even that interesting from a historical perspective since nothing was ever done in Michigan with it. Worse the original article was created by a banned vandal. Its best just to get rid of it. KelleyCook (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to Interstate 73. The article seems to be an expansion of information from the main Interstate 73 article, with citations. If reliable sources detail the Interstate's proposal, then neither CRYSTAL or OR apply, and a banned vandal's origins does not mean that others haven't made sure that what remains is up to Wikipedia's standards. It can be very notable when a highway isn't built. MMetro (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — It was created as a redirect by said banned vandal, but it was fleshed out about 3 months ago. It's the expanded version that should be deleted if anything. I've been cleaning it up slowly so that if the article is kept, it's not such a mess. Previously, it had an exit list, as if the freeway alignments had all been decided, even though large sections of the highway aren't freeway at this time, nor are upgrades planned. Personally, I'd redirect the title back to the main page and be done with it, as it was originally. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an opinion on keeping, merging, or deleting, because I don't seem to know the history of the article as well as others here, but I am strongly opposed to keeping the article as is with the current name. The name is misleading and the existence of the topic suggests that the interstate exists in Michigan. If it is kept I think it absolutely must be renamed/moved. I would not support keeping a redirect of the current name because it's unlikely someone would type it in in the topic box, and I think we should be cautious and reference the topic as "proposed extension of Interstate 73 in Michigan" or something like that. Cazort (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm after thinking longer I would change my vote to Delete. This is just not notable as a topic in and of itself. Cazort (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Interstate 73. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in this article that isn't already in the main I-73 article. ALL of the text that LALaker13 split out to form the article, save the now deleted exit list and the lead section came as copied text from the main article. I've pruned all the junk out that doesn't pertain to understanding a history of the highway in Michigan, but honestly, the article should just be deleted and a redirect to the main article revived on the off chance a template calls for it. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Interstate 73 - The information can adequately be covered there. ---Dough 48 72 03:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Imzadi1979. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Interstate 73. Salvage anything useful and put it into the I-73 article, but there's not enough here to merit an article on its own. Brian Powell (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simply delete, per Imzadi1979. -- Avenue (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Imzadi1979. The useful portions of the article are already contained in Interstate 73, so there's nothing that needs to be merged. – T M F 06:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Interstate 73 as per the nominator's arguments. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create new redirect to Interstate 73 per above. --Polaron | Talk 17:32, 7 January 2010 (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.