Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 236 (Onondaga County, New York) (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:36, 25 February 2022

County Route 236 (Onondaga County, New York)

[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)

This article was redirected to List of county routes in Onondaga County, New York for 10 years until a few days ago when it was unceremoniously reverted back to a standalone article. A past discussion Talk:County Route 236 (Onondaga County, New York)/GA2 and several other discussions [1] as well as WP:USRD/NT have concluded that county roads are not notable.

Moreover, this route has no route markers and there are also filler statements such as the fact that only one county route in Onondaga County is signed, the routes are not usually marked on maps, so an exact date for the route's inception is unknown. Rs chen 7754 03:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Rs chen 7754 03:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect—the subject is not notable for a stand-alone article, but it could be a valid search term useful to point readers to the list article. Imzadi 1979 → 04:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
’’’This AFD is not necessary’’’ The article needs to be merged per previous consensus decision. Redirect without merging anything, as was done despite merge decision, was wrong. After my attention was called to the old AFD by a new edit there, i noted merge had not been done, and restored article with note in edit summary at least, that merge not redirect makes sense. Please close this new AFD as an administrative matter, and either a) implement a decent merge or b) post proper “merger implementation needed” type notice on the article per instructions for closing AFDs. (Note I supported Keeping the article in original AFD, but agree with later decision to merge to an appropriate target.) Doncram (talk) 04:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Should we merge the part where we say that we don't know when the route was built? --Rs chen 7754 04:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Wrong venue. You're looking for WP:PM. Other then that, nom sounds great. casualdejekyll 21:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect — This should have not been reverted back to a standalone article, this county route is not notable enough on its own and should redirect to the list. Dough4872 21:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect basically per Dough4872. If you're upset the merge was never done, the correct response is to perform the merge, not to restore the entire article to make a point. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Gee, I am sorry to have given Rschen an excuse to cause drama, by their creating this unnecessary AFD. Which invites others interested in drama to chime in non-productively, in my opinion, with interest of chiding me perhaps, rather than interest in properly addressing the issue raised imperfectly by me. I was not myself up to speed on how to do the closure that should have been done originally. Okay, fine, I will close this and figure out how to post the proper merger-required tagging. Fie on all of you who just want drama! --Doncram (talk) 04:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 *'''Redirect''' — This should have not been reverted back to a standalone article, this county route is not notable enough on its own and should redirect to the list. '''<span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px">[[User:Dough4872|<span style="color:white">Dough</span>]]</span><span style="background: #FFD200; padding:2px">[[User talk:Dough4872|<span style="color:black">4872</span>]]</span>''' 21:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 *'''Redirect''' basically per Dough4872. If you're upset the merge was never done, the correct response is to ''perform the merge'', not to restore the entire article to make a point. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 23:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
+'''Comment''': Gee, I am sorry to have given Rschen an excuse to cause drama, by their creating this unnecessary AFD.  Which invites others interested in drama to chime in non-productively, in my opinion, with interest of chiding me perhaps, rather than interest in properly addressing the issue raised imperfectly by me.  I was not myself up to speed on how to do the closure that should have been done originally.  Okay, fine, I will close this and figure out how to post the proper merger-required tagging.  Fie on all of you who just want drama! --[[User:Doncram|Doncram]] ([[User talk:Doncram|talk]]) 04:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)