Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princes Highway East (Melbourne)

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 Princes Highway. (non-admin closure) czar · · 14:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Princes Highway East (Melbourne) (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)

These articles should either be deleted, merged or preferably userified (if someone volunteers to find references) and then merged into Princes Highway or if required; the other existing articles such as Princes Freeway and Princes Motorway -- Nbound (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following pages are also included in this discussion

Princes Highway, Geelong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Princes Highway, Melbourne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Princes Highway, Wollongong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Princes Highway, Sydney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- Nbound (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Each section then can be more precise. Marcnut1996 (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to follow this we will at some point need to discuss what makes a notable subsection deserving of an article. To me this is largely meaningless disambiguation for the sake of overly verbose route descriptions on longer roads -- Nbound (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At some point we will have need to for daughter articles on roads, not wanting to discuss criteria isnt a valid reason to suggest deletion Gnangarra 10:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Im not suggesting we delete specifically, just that something be done with them - my preference is userified until references found (and articles summarised) and then merged :). I wasnt saying criteria discussion as a reason not to do it either, just that we'd have to figure out some criteria before the next one of these pops up. -- Nbound (talk) 10:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is the reason for nominating here, merging is an alternative for otherwise notable content... If you wanted to merge why not just tag them with {{merge to}}{{merge}} etc, Gnangarra 10:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to see what others thought, deletion was an option, just not my personal first preference. Deletion is just one possible outcome from an AfD nom, despite the name :). For example, AURD's last AfD ended resulted in a redirect: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metroad 5 (Sydney) -- Nbound (talk) 11:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Princes Highway - All of the articles need work, but there is no reason for them to exist separately. They should not be deleted as the edit history should be preserved. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• inclined to say Keep but Merge as per Aussielegend is probably the better compromise, these are plausible daughter articles once content gets beyond route descriptions. Even from WA I'm aware of issues with the Highway over the years and these issues do differing State implications... Gnangarra 10:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Userify and merge or just Merge - (as nom) - clear up my position -- Nbound (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: No need for a separate bullet. Also AfD is intended for deletion only (though as you note, other outcomes are possible), and noms that propose non-deletion actions (e.g., merge) are eligible for speedy keep #1. In the future, you can propose what may be a controversial move via Wikipedia:Proposed mergers and the article's talk page. czar · · 14:51, 25 June 2013 (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.