Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Carolina Highway 13 (1936–1951)

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. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 04:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina Highway 13 (1936–1951)[edit]

[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)

Unnotable historic designation which doesn't follow any significant modern routes. The article itself is based entirely on maps, and it appears that no other reliable sources concerning the highway exist. Phil roc (c) 22:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: While I might be biased in this matter, I do believe this article is encyclopedic. While the route was rather short, it did exist for a span of over 15 years and it was part of the North Carolina State Highway System. As for "it doesn't follow any significant modern routes", this article appears to be relatively similar, but has achieved GA Status. Maps are often the best source we can get in North Carolina for historic state routes, but I don't think that discounts the article's validity. It did exist for 15 years, so its incredibly unlikely it was a misprint or something of the sorts.--Ncchild (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, Although I am not thinking that it definitely fails WP:NROAD, I don't think the GA review highlighted above is a particularly good example, as standards around a decade ago weren't quite as stringent as now and it didn't seem like much of a review. This article is very similar, in that it doesn't assert notability in secondary sources. Something existing alone generally isn't sufficient on minor roads. I am somewhat on the fence. I don't know if this and this is the same highway, but if so it talks about a proposed extension so are at least worth a mention as secondary sources? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bungle: As far as I can tell, both of those articles are referring to the extension of U.S. Route 13 into North Carolina, which was the main reason for Highway 13's elimination. Philroc (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Philroc: Hence why I said I "didn't know" if it related to the same highway, however if you're suggesting (I assume with better knowledge than me of the US highway system) that the extension to another highway was significant in the demise of this one, I guess it's still worth inclusion? That was just from a very quick search and although I am slightly confused by what seems to be a very similar naming system for what you suggest are alternate highways, I am still inclined to weakly support retaining this one. The over reliance on maps is a concern, but not in itself a sufficient deletion rationale. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—still a part of the history of the state's highway system worth including if we're going to have a comprehensive history of that system. Attempting to merge it someplace will result in WP:SIZE and WP:UNDUE issues, so it should remain as its own article. Imzadi 1979 → 16:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is a legitimate member of the list set North Carolina Highway 13 and, per Imzadi1979, is needed for completeness. Notability is not temporary and the route was part of the state highway system, so WP:GEOROAD is satisfied and WP:V is met based on the official state maps. Whether any of the roadways used as part of that route are currently part of the state highway system is irrelevant. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it is a legitimate historical article part of a set.Jackattack1597 (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2021 (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.