Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstate 74 in Iowa

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 merge to Interstate 74. Merge and redirect to main article (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 74 in Iowa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Not worthy of its own article. Rschen7754 (T C) 21:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Either redirect to Interstate 74 or delete as this probably isn't a likely search term. Interstate 74 in Illinois might also be considered for a redirect. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My argument is that a 5 mile section should not have its own article when it can be merged. I-74 in IL is worthy of its own article, as it is way longer (220 miles). --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Keep - Why not retain the data? BTW, might want to mention Interstate 74 in Virginia and all the others. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 21:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The one you mention redirects to Interstate 77 in Virginia. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bah...same basic idea: the article can contain "Interstate __ in ______" Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 21:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Interstate 74. I don't see the need for separate pages. TerriersFan (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Where else do you suppose to put the exit list table then? -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 21:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just in the Interstate 74 article - I believe we do this for a few other Interstates. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Preferably keep but merge is acceptable. Yes, this is a short stretch of Interstate, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style (exit lists) would seem to encourage this style of subarticles if only for the exit list, which IMO would look silly in Interstate 74 since it'd be the only state so treated there. And its not like there aren't shorter interstates out there (yes, I know those aren't subarticles). BryanG (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a person who was somewhat involved in the creation of this guideline, this is a severe distortion of it - this was never what this guideline was intended to say. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Sorry about the delay) Now that I think about it more, you're probably right. That portion struck. There probably needs to be a broader conversation at some point about when a split is appropriate. Having said that, the suggestion below of merging into the Illinois article to produce Interstate 74 in Illinois and Iowa works for me. BryanG (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per above. --I-210 (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • elaborate "per above" please  — master son^{T - C} 00:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Interstate 74 and merge list to same. Unless one can find enormous amounts of data on a route that passes about 5 minutes into the Quad Cities of Iowa, I don't believe it deserves its own article. An infobox and exit list is not enough.  — master son^{T - C} 00:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per I-210 (talk · contribs). -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 00:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The main Interstate 74 page can handle the mere 5 miles of the interstate in Iowa. --Airtuna08 (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to I-74 main article. This article is unnecessary. We don't need a state detail article on five miles of road when an article covering the whole thing exists and isn't even B-Class yet. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BryanG (talk · contribs) and Interstate_70_in_West_Virginia. --Fredddie™ 05:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That probably should not exist either. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But then that brings up a whole list of articles that shouldn't exist, and then what to do with them. First 10 miles? Then 20 miles? Then maybe 30 miles if there's nothing really to write about? I-57 in Mizzou, I-24 in Illinois, I-55 in Tennessee, I-95 in NH? The list goes on. What do we consider substantial enough for its own article? Length alone? How much history? How many exits are there? 24 miles and two exits, not a lot of information, so we scrap it? Should we create two-state (I-XX in Y and Z) pages so we can keep an exist list? For example such as NH's I-95 off of the main article which can not support it, nor could I-70's WVa list? (I-95 in NH and ME, e.g., or I-70 in WV and PA?) Those could also create disproportionate amounts of information on one state in an article covering many states. I don't mean to get all worked up but this just looks like a snowballing problem that we'd have to address at some point, but I think the best way is two-state articles with an exception or two. --MPD ^{T / C} 08:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to its connection with the Quad Cities, evidenced here, here, and here. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 08:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But does that translate into enough stuff to write a decent-quality article? We don't want an article on the Quad Cities. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Interstate 74 in Illinois and redirect to Interstate 74 in Illinois and Iowa. --Fredddie™ 08:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Freddie. The Iowa section is essentially an extension of the Illinois section. If people feel the Illinois article needs to be renamed in this case then let's do that too. --Polaron | Talk 12:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't have a dog in this fight, except to say I think putting the exit list on the main I-74 article is a bad idea. I can see the exit list on the main I-74 article spiraling out of control if this is done. Anybody who has helped maintain the articles for the big cross country routes (i.e. Interstate 70, U.S. Route 50 etc.), knows what I'm talking about. If it is to be merged, IMO, should be with the Illinois I-74 article.Dave (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per Freddie and Polaron. Polaron speaks best for me, as the user wrote essential what I would have. --Son (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per Freddie and Polaron. Putting an exit list- even such a short one- on the main article of such a long (not to mention complicated) route degrades the main article. I can swear I had this conversation once before but I can't find it. Back then though, I supported merging and a name change. But then this brings up what to do with an article like Interstate 24 in Georgia. I have other bones to pick about I-74 in other states but that's for a different time. --MPD ^{T / C} 08:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Interstate 74. Just a few comments from across the pond, if I make any incorrect comparisons, feel free to bring me up on this. I'd like to compare this to our M4 motorway, despite going through two countries (For this I'm treating England and Wales as equivalent to US states), the article is more coherent and easy to follow on a single page, rather than "M4 motorway in England" and "M4 motorway in Wales". After looking at Interstate 74 and its sub articles, if they were all to be merged into the single article and copyedited, it'd make a great article. As it is, the information is scattered and hard to follow. I also notice a couple of the sub articles are redirects to different roads entirely, this just adds to the confusion. Until today I didn't really know anything about I-74, and after reading these articles that situation hasn't really changed! An unwritten rule we have over here seems to be that a single route has a single article. Just thought a few comments from an uninvolved user may be beneficial. Jenuk1985 | Talk 02:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This article can go either way. Keep if descriptive information about the route and its history is added. Otherwise the article should be Redirected to Interstate 74 as the short amount of information can adequately be described there Dough4872 (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Interstate 74. There is no reason for a breakout article for the section running through Iowa. -- Whpq (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2009 (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.