Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstate 594

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 594

Interstate 594 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

De-PRODed saying Google shows some sources for this number, but the only source added explicitly does not use the I-594 nomenclature at all. In fact, a Google search for this number does not turn up any usable sources, just online discussion board postings (fails WP:RS and WP:CRYSTAL for starters) and sources about Illinois Route 594, a totally separate highway. Imzadi 1979 → 03:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails GNG for the standards of Interstate Highways. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 03:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Sources for this interstate number? No. Sources for aspects of the claimed proposal? Yes. That was the reason I de-prodded, as there are other potential options (renaming and editing to remove the interstate number, for instance). I didn't consider this controversial when I was moving through the PROD backlog. This isn't an opinion either way, just an explanation of the deprod. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect to Illinois 53#Future, which already has more information about the subject than this article has. I'm seeing the same problem as in the nomination: I-594 is a made-up name from a message board of no weight, for an extension of Illinois 53 and possibly part of Illinois 120. The only citation in the article is to a 2013 Illinois Tollway proposal, which explicitly says 45 miles per hour for the main stem, which implies that it's not even intended to be up to Interstate standards. I mention Delete here because there's no evidence this is even a name used for this topic, except in a couple of speculative web pages out on the Internet. --Closeapple (talk) 04:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 04:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect is better than outright deletion, because the edit history would be preserved if/when there is more sourced content to add, and perhaps more importantly so that the Talk page will preserve a link to this thoughtful AFD discussion. Perhaps helping any future editor decide not to start up an Interstate 594 article. I say Redirect rather than Merge because I gather from comments here that there is not really any significant, reliable content to merge. --doncram 00:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:RS. The only highway with this 594 designation is a road in Monroe Louisiana. Not at all notable and not in the U.S. federal interstate system. Perhaps a WP:Hoax?SW3 5DL (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2016 (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.