Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highways numbered 1000

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 Keep as DABs where applicable. A bit of a messy AfD, with many disparate issues being discussed somewhat in parallel. There is clear consensus that NLIST is not met here; that is, the subjects of these lists are not notable as a group, though they may be individually notable. There is consensus that these pages may serve useful navigational functions, and as such pages that list three or more entries should be turned into DABs titled "Highway [number]". It's still unclear what we should do if and when only two or one pages are listed, and consensus isn't clear on this point. To me, common sense suggests that when a number DAB exists, that would be a logical merge target, and if none exists, then likely the matter can be handled without a DAB page at all; some PRODs and/or RfDs may be needed. However, this last is a suggestion only, as there was limited discussion of this case in the AfD. Normally, I would implement this closure, but given the size of the undertaking I'm going to duck that responsibility, and I note Primefac has offered to take up the slack, though of course he is not compelled to. That may include removing the AfD template from a number of articles, as the script appears to be upset about this discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of highways numbered 1000

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

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

Texas and Louisiana have a lot of roads.^{[citation needed]} So does Kentucky (to a lesser extent). Each one of these roads is listed in more detail in locations such as List of state highways in Louisiana (1000–1049). These two- or three-item lists are pointless, they are not actually linked to from any article (other than themselves) and are not encyclopedic. It's pointless mass-created cross-categorisation that serves no purpose. I will also point out a previous nomination which has similar rationale, however I see zero reason to redirect any of these. Primefac (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other nominated pages in this same listing

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, United States of America, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Texas. Primefac (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator that this type of list is pointless and not encyclopedic. Serveds no real purpose. Paul H. (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion that this group is notable as a group. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 14:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless. ScottWillis45 (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move all to "Highway X". The titles as is are inappropriate but I disagree with the noms claim there is no value, "Highway X" are possible search terms and these arictles would be useful to disambiguate. Another option would be to disambiguate to just the number, like how the 1187 article was closed, but that involves more work. Jumpytoo Talk 21:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If anyone is looking for a highway usually they're typing in the state or country first, then the number, or else to the highway article itself and to the bottom template to find the highway they need. These pages are so short as to be useless. Nate • (chatter) 22:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Only a couple of entries per list is not a list and serves very little purpose as a disambiguation. Ajf773 (talk) 09:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I would not move any of these to new titles given that they're consistent with the other 1,300 such pages in Category:Lists of roads sharing the same title. Given the number of articles in that category, I can see some utility to these, and I think that like redirects, dab pages are fairly cheap to have and serve some navigation utility. Imzadi 1979 → 22:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—to clarify, if the titling is an issue, then a massive move request encompassing the other 1,300 articles would be in order. We shouldn't be considering these 200 pages separate from the rest. Imzadi 1979 → 08:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Naming is not the issue. I recognise that there are a ton of these pages, and I plan on dealing with them at a later time. These are the metaphorical low-hanging fruit, and a good place to garner opinions about the other pages without having to explicitly nominate them (i.e. it will inform my future actions as to merge or AFD similar pages). Primefac (talk) 09:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to numbers. I disagree with the nom, as the lists are marginally useful like Jumpytoo says. They would definitely be better as categories and/or disambiguation pages, as such pages would not be totally useless for disambiguating topics like "Highway 1000". However, they are not suitable as standalone lists. Epicgenius (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I mean: List of highways numbered 1000 can be redirected to 1000 (number), List of highways numbered 1001 can be redirected to 1001 (number), etc.
I think WP:LISTPURP overrides WP:NLIST here, namely: Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. These lists do serve a navigational purpose, but they are all so short that they do not need to be standalone lists. Redirecting these lists to disambiguation pages, or to the articles about the numbers themselves, will allow these lists to continue serving a navigational purposes. Hence, I don't think the arguments that "these lists aren't notable as a group" are applicable here. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that if all possible entries were added, that there would be significant content for a disambiguation/set index page (which is what these are, these are not intended to be full-fledged articles). For example, Category:Roads in England, Category:Chinese national-level expressways, sk:Kategória:Cesty III. triedy na Slovensku, French national routes, bg:Категория:Републикански пътища в България etc. --Rs chen 7754 02:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the past AFDs have ended in redirecting to the number (example: 1055 (disambiguation)) and I would find that acceptable too. --Rs chen 7754 02:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - My only issue with that is not all pages have dab pages; to pick one entirely at random (and yes, it was literally the first one I clicked), 1126 is about the year, and there is no "number" or "dab-style" page. So we would essentially be renaming List of highways numbered 1126 to 1126 (disambiguation), which seems more like moving around deck chairs than anything. Primefac (talk) 09:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even so, if we did this across the board, it would eliminate a significant number of pages. And it would open up the door to more entries as they come up. Regardless, disambiguation pages are cheap. I guess I don't see the problem. --Rs chen 7754 06:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to the numbers dab pages. These dab pages could be expanded to list all highways in all countries with that number, which would make them more useful. If there are too few entries to maintain a dab page, redirecting to the number dab page is a good option. Dough4872 13:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Disambiguation pages are still necessary for navigation, especially considering that categories are not easily accessible for mobile readers. Sounder Bruce 06:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, I see a strong, early movement to delete this mass-created pages and a later group of editors asking to Keep or Redirect them instead which could lead us to a No consensus decision. Just a note, the way this AFD is set up right now, I think any Redirect for all of these pages would have to be done manually. Right now, I'm just going to relist this discussion for another week/few days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to numbers per Epicgenius and Rschen7754. Are the links on these pages useful? Sure, I guess. I personally don't use them, but that doesn't mean nobody uses them. Are there more highways out there that would potentially go into these lists? Definitely. Are these lists worth anything on their own? No. Redirecting to the numbers is the way to go. –Fredddie ™ 06:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I asked above, what numbers? Most of the numbers on this list do not have a "things for this number" disambiguator, so we would just be turning (for example) List of highways numbered 1056 into 1056 (disambiguation) without changing anything. Primefac (talk) 07:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most != all, especially if you are going to nominate the other articles for deletion. And it opens the door for those pages to be used by other things that come up. All the numbers under 2022 will at least have the year as an additional entry. Is there something I am missing? Do extra disambiguation pages cause the website any harm? It's not like they are stubs. --Rs chen 7754 17:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOHARM. Primefac (talk) 07:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What, it's false information to say that a State Highway X exists in Kentucky? --Rs chen 7754 02:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "it does not do any harm" claim and its rebuttal are at the center of the philosophical editing debate of inclusionism versus deletionism. In other words, I am not going to get into it with you if that's your primary argument (which it shouldn't be anyway, because it's one of the Arguments to Avoid). Primefac (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for one more week, in an attempt to arrive at a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jumpytoo and Imzadi1979: Since both of you have already voted for variants of keeping - would redirecting/merging to the numbers be acceptable to you? --Rs chen 7754 01:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is willing to make the effort to create the missing numerical disambiguation articles, then yes I would support that. Jumpytoo Talk 04:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. There is no need to bundle a bunch of highways from several different states whose sole connection is that their (somewhat) arbitrarily assigned number is 1,000. I would delete for all numbers below 1,000 as well. Frank Anchor 18:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Blocked sockpuppet of BFDIFan707, see investigation)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Delete - I also cannot find anything about this spot - WP:NOTDATABASE, no indication that it meets WP:GNG or any other relevant notability standard. CPORfan (talk) 09:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CPORfan, that is a very certain opinion for a week-old editor to have about a very extensive deletion proposal. What "spot" are you referring to? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A valid question, maybe, but not when framed was "you've only been here a fortnight how can you possibly know this". Primefac (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. scope_creep^Talk 21:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no difference at all between List of highways numbered 1000 and the very clearly necessary disambig/set index List of highways numbered 10. There appear to be fewer though so we don't need separate indexes for A1000 road, M1000, etc. and I would not necessarily be opposed to merging groups of numbers into a single set index if someone thinks that would be beneficial. Deleting this will make navigation harder without bringing any benefits to the encyclopaedia at all. Thryduulf (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did actually start writing something similar to List of NGC objects (e.g. a composite list of "all highways between 1000-2000") but was concerned that it was basically duplicating the state lists (e.g. List of state highways in Louisiana (1000–1049)). Primefac (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are many UK A and B roads that could go on the lists too, although only some of the former have articles and if any B roads do they will be few and far between. See e.g. A1117 road and A roads in Zone 1 of the Great Britain numbering scheme. Thryduulf (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Liz (the potential AfD closer) said that if a redirect was the consensus each article would likely have to be done manually, perhaps implying there's a lot more work involved than with a simple keep or delete. Being new to AfD discussions, on a practical point, who carries out the work? I'd hope it would be those who have proposed that course of action, not Liz! The redirect arguments to numbers I don't see a strong rationale for. I agree with the point that if this categorisation is of no use for roads/highways labelled upwards of 1000 then it's questionable whether it has any use for all those numbered below 1000. So my conclusion is: if this way of categorisation serves a useful purpose (and some contributors have hinted it might, though it seems without firm conviction), then keep all but if it doesn't delete all. Rupples (talk) 12:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The XfDCloser script likely cannot handle 200 pages being nominated at once, and so when the discussion is closed (regardless of the outcome) the result will need to be manually implemented. As the nominator of the AFD I am fine with doing that ("it's my mess" type of situation). Primefac (talk) 13:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generally its the AfD closer who implements the consensus - this is no bother at all when there are only a few articles considered. There are tools/scripts that help with some large nominations, e.g. XfD closer I think can quickly remove templates from many articles if the consensus is keep; but the implication is that it can't handle creating redirects (I don't use it myself so I may be wrong). This is something AWB may be able to handle (I don't know) or there may be a bot out there that can do the job. That should not be a consideration in determining the consensus though.

I too see no value at all in redirecting to the numbers, but I do (as noted) see these as valuable pages (possibly when merged) as there are more than just two US states that use four digit road numbers, e.g. the UK. France and Spain also have at least a couple each but we don't seem to have lists of them. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:LC – not a useful search term or grouping. Stifle (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Stifle. I don't think the are any sources anywhere that mention together the set of roads numbered 10 (such as Highway 10 in the US, Highway 10 in Australia, the A10 in Britain, the N10 in Ireland, the A10 in France etc etc etc) and consequently WP:NOTESAL is not satisfied as the set is not notable, and hence a random bit of indiscriminate information. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There seems to be a lot of confusion over what these pages are intended to be. I see them as disambiguation pages. Do we generally source disambiguation pages? --Rs chen 7754 17:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  "Officially" these are set index articles, per {{Road index}}. Primefac (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move all to "Highway X" per Jumpytoo. Each individual page has too little information to justify having a separate article, and the listed items have very little in common with each other. I'm not exactly sure what is meant by "Redirect all to numbers as suggested by Epicgenius, but if it is something similar then I'll go with that too. And if the Closer need more people to manually redirecting all the pages, please notify me in my talk page, I'll help out during the process. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that, for example, List of highways numbered 1000 can be redirected to 1000 (number), List of highways numbered 1001 can be redirected to 1001 (number), etc. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Lacks reliable sources supporting that WP:NLIST is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Speaking as a potential closer: there is currently clear consensus that WP:NLIST is not met, but a reasonable argument has been put forward that these are valuable as DAB pages. Given the considerable input this has received it would be a shame to close this as "no consensus", so I'm relisting one more time in the hope that the remaining disagreement can be hashed out. So: do we keep all/some/none as DABs, do we retitle, do we merge? It wouldn't be the worst idea to ping those who have already participated here. Relisting manually, as this AfD breaks the script. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: my first preference is still to delete these all, but if there is no consensus to delete then merging these into one or two list-of-lists type articles like List of NGC objects would be a reasonable (if distant) second choice. Primefac (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as DABs, but consolidate): I was confused as to the purpose of these pages, but having read through the discussion again, things are at last becoming clearer. I'd been trying to find insight or meaning between the links in the articles but failed. A1000 in the UK, FM1000 in Texas - no relation to each other, except they're both highways/roads. However, while a meaningful relationship is a requirement for a set index it's not for DAB pages. Notability isn't relevant as DABs are a navigational aid.

If successful with delete, ~~the nominator has indicated an intention to AfD the rest of these highway lists~~ what concerns me is the effect this could have on readership of the underlying articles for each road/highway because they may not be found so easily. Less links = less readers.

I don't get the argument for merging into numbers as there'd be even less relationship between the articles listed. Year 1000, highway 1000? Nah! Consolidation into DABs of highway numbers, between say, 1000 and 1099; 1100 and 1199 etc is a better alternative. Rupples (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a point of clarification, I did not say I had an intention to AfD the rest of these highway lists. I said that this discussion will inform my future actions as to merge or AFD similar pages. Even if this discussion closes as "delete", there has been enough pushback that I would likely not be nominating any of the other pages for deletion, and clearly pages like List of highways numbered 10 (which is 10k long) should be left alone; The 1000 numberings are, with very very small exception, a pseudo-dab between TX and LA highways. The others have semi-useful content, even if that content should probably be merged to a super-group page. Primefac (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the misinterpretation. Rupples (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rupples that these articles should be kept as DABs but consolidated. Like many others, I struggle with the utility of individual pages where there are only one or two entries. But there is precedent for lists of highways at higher numbers such as the Louisiana page mentioned in the nomination rationale. A discussion should be had to determine what an appropriate cutoff for these merged lists is. (E.g., it doesn't make sense to have "List of highways numbered 1-10," but "List of highways numbered 1000-1050" is probably fine). Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as DABs but consolidated per Rupples. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Turn into disambiguation pages seems to be the compromise solution (and how these are presently functioning) but it isn't clear what "consolidated" means. If it means create ranges, such as Highways 1000–1099, then that's no longer "disambiguation". I recommend (1) retitling these lists in "Highway X" format, e.g., List of highways numbered 10 becomes Highway 10, which would be the term that needs disambiguating, then (2) if there are at least three entries, leave as a disambiguation page or for discussion, but if there are fewer entries, merge to the number's disambiguation page, or create one if none exists. E.g.:
- List of highways numbered 10 becomes Highway 10 and stays a disambiguation page; link Highway 10 from Ten (disambiguation), its number disambiguation page
- List of highways numbered 1000 becomes Highway 1000 and disambiguates between its three entries; link it from 1000 (disambiguation)
- List of highways numbered 1001 becomes Highway 1001 and merges into 1001 (disambiguation) as it isn't worth keeping a separate disambiguation page for just two highway entries and there are other entries called "1001" that can be disambiguated; same for 1002 and 1003, which have year pages but neither number nor disambiguation pages and would need creation

This preserves both the content and the intent of the "lists" without becoming onerous. czar 16:58, 18 December 2022 (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.