Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstate 605 (Washington)

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. John254 01:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 605 (Washington)

REDIRECT Talk:Interstate 605 (Washington)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Freewayguy (talk • contribs) 2008/01/04 17:32:42

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, no reason for deletion given. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Very weak keep~~ Keep. I found this source, which could be of use. Also, the two existing sources seem just barely on the side of WP:V. Something doesn't have to exist to be verifiable. I still want the nom to give a reason for deletion, though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: the article refers to a proposed, but non-existent highway. Hence, the article is highly speculative and fails WP:CRYSTAL and does not assert any notability per WP:N and is poorly referenced. Mh29255 (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article as East King County Freeway as long as the highly speculative nature of the possible project is clearly included within the article, meaning that it may never come to fruition. Mh29255 (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As long as this article contains the name of a non-existent & unapproved interstate, I will keep my vote as "Strong delete" because naming it as such is willfully misleading. Mh29255 (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What else would you call it? This is the only name I can find in the media. --NE2 01:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You, and many other people here, are making the false assumption that because someone many years ago coined the term "I-605", that somehow, that freeway is being planned and is going to be built. Nothing could be further from the truth, which is simply this: there is no I-605, there are no plans of any kind to build an I-605 and even if a highway is eventually built someday (for which there are absolutely no plans to do) east of I-405, that highway won't necessarily be named I-605. I'd like to see Wikipedia contain accurate information, not wishful thinking. Mh29255 (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I make that false assumption? If it was called I-605, that's where the article should be, not at a made-up name. --NE2 02:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term was coined in 1968 when the possibility of a "commerce corridor" was first revealed. That "commerce corridor" (the official name of the yet planned or yet built road) was dubbed by some as I-605. The 1968 plan was rejected. An additional & similar Washington state DOT study released in 2000 was also rejected. Thus, as this article currently stands, it contains false & misleading information about a highway that has been twice rejected; yet the top of the article plainly states that this is a "planned or expected future highway", which it clearly isn't. Mh29255 (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that template. --NE2 02:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a small start in the right direction. Mh29255 (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can add details to the article, seeing as you know more about it than I do. --NE2 02:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added additional information to the article for clarification and accuracy. These changes will allow me to vote to keep the article since it no longer pretends that an actual plan for I-605 exists and that it has been nothing more than a decades-long series of studies & endless debates. Mh29255 (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So your entire argument is based against the naming convention adopted by consensus at WP:IH? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I was willing to compromise; but that was taken away. Mh29255 (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Proposals for an I-605 have been coming forth for over three decades, and the reliable and verifiable sources describing different plans over the years satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In my opinion, the given that there is no clear, approved design for I-605, an article referring to it is WP:CRYSTAL. If this article is ultimately kept, I would want to see it renamed to "Proposed Interstate 605 (Washington)". Mh29255 (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such a name change won't be necessary. Even though the freeway's only proposed right now, there appear to be at least a couple reliable sources indicating its status. Merely stating that something is proposed isn't necessarily crystal-balling, not even if the sources conflict. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand your reasoning, the sources are several years old and may be outdated. Further, road planning can go on for years, in which case, this article could remain a "what-if" for a very long time to come. That is not particularly encyclopedic in my opinion. Mh29255 (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name change would go against naming convention at Wikipedia:WikiProject Interstate Highways. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Major traffic arterials have a huge impact on other development even in the planning stages. The article is sourced and I think plenty notable. I think Crystal Ball can be ignored here because of the impact and debate of the planning. matt91486 (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is sourced and notable, per WP:USRD. Furthermore, there are many proposed, unbuilt, unsigned, etc. highways that are notable and contain pages. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 30 years of bickering, arguing and public policy debates merit inclusion. The article absolutely needs to be expanded, though. —Rob (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Can we get a reason for the AfD outside of a talk page link? Something a little more... elaborate. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Important Comment: An October, 2005 article [1] (newer than anything on the article page) indicates that there are no current plans for I-605 and that no King County, Washington road plans have ever included I-605. I-605 was nothing more than a proposal made several decades ago an no serious work has ever been done to make it happen. I-605 in Seattle is pure WP:CRYSTAL. Even the name "I-605" is purely speculative since nothing at all exists and no official name for the yet-to-be-anything-more-than-speculative-freeway has ever been approved. How can this article claiming that there is a "proposed I-605" not be WP:CRYSTAL? Mh29255 (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That article is hardly as damning an indictment as you make it seem. That just says that one person didn't work diligently on it. matt91486 (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The October 2005 article you've cited, which would only add to the article, describes conflicts between politicians who support and oppose an I-605, hardly the material of WP:CRYSTAL. The only entity described as not ever having plans for an I-605 is the board of the Regional Transportation Investment District; this does not mean that plans have never existed from other entities, public and private, as described in the article. Alansohn (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most recent (voter-rejected) transportation proposal for King, Snohomish & Pierce Counties in 2007, called "Proposition 1", did NOT include anything for "I-605". [2] I-605 wasn't even mentioned and the proposition was rejected by voters in November, 2007. I-605 was a suggestion that has never been given any serious consideration. Mh29255 (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the number gets assigned at the end of a freeway construction project, not the beginning (unless legislated by law), so the fact the freeway wasn't referred to by the number in history isn't an article-killer in itself. If you'd rather have it as East King County Freeway (Interstate 605), ~~a la Crosstown Expressway (Interstate 494) that's understandable,~~ but at some point the number stuck. Plus no one's calling it the "East King County Freeway". It's better to have the number be the article name. —Rob (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the article was moved to Crosstown Expressway (Chicago). But the point still stands. :-) —Rob (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article has been moved to East King County Freeway. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And moved back, since that's not the common name. --NE2 00:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: All state highways are inherently notable, whether or not they've actually been built. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This highway may never be built, but refs have been furnished from two newspapers and a TV station which discuss the proposal and use the I 605 nomenclature, thus barely satisfying WP:N. Many existing highways with articles have poorer refs than this and have survived AFDs. Edison (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, there are enough references in the article to establish notability. Chris! _ct 03:11, 8 January 2008 (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.