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.
This only disambiguates to two articles, and it has a very low page views, averaging less than five views per day for the past year. Imzadi 1979→17:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Pageviews and number of entries (if > 1) are irrelevant, but this doesn't make sense as a disambiguation page. I-20/59 does not refer to either the I-20 or the I-59 highway, it refers to an apparently long section that's shared by both (i.e. a
concurrency). On at least two occasions in the past editors have created articles on the topic (here's
the latest one), and an article certainly makes more sense than a dab page. –
Uanfala (talk)17:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Weak keep for now and revert back to the prior version before the edits made by @
Fredddie:. As Uanfala mentioned, there has been a substantial article here in the past and the sudden switch to a disambig and then AFD seems unwise to me.
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback)
18:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. Not all highway concurrencies have the type of sourced notability that, say,
U.S. Route 1/9 does, and this one doesn't seem to warrant a standalone article. Any potential content would ultimately be
forks of the individual articles. A disambiguation page sets a bad precedent, in that we don't need such pages for potentially every concurrency, and there is no single redirect target, in that I see no rationale to pick one route over the other, even if I-20 is considered a "major" Interstate. --Kinut/c23:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)reply
comment I have brought this back to a minimal version of what it said before the IMO wrong-headed disambiguation version. I have no opinion as to notability, but kept or not the article should be reasonable.
Mangoe (
talk)
03:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment—as shown now, the "article" fails
WP:GNG as a topic distinct from the two overlapping Interstates, and this version of the "article" should definitely be deleted. Based on page views, it's an unlikely search topic to warrant the disambiguation page. Imzadi 1979→07:54, 24 June 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.
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.
This only disambiguates to two articles, and it has a very low page views, averaging less than five views per day for the past year. Imzadi 1979→17:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Pageviews and number of entries (if > 1) are irrelevant, but this doesn't make sense as a disambiguation page. I-20/59 does not refer to either the I-20 or the I-59 highway, it refers to an apparently long section that's shared by both (i.e. a
concurrency). On at least two occasions in the past editors have created articles on the topic (here's
the latest one), and an article certainly makes more sense than a dab page. –
Uanfala (talk)17:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Weak keep for now and revert back to the prior version before the edits made by @
Fredddie:. As Uanfala mentioned, there has been a substantial article here in the past and the sudden switch to a disambig and then AFD seems unwise to me.
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback)
18:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. Not all highway concurrencies have the type of sourced notability that, say,
U.S. Route 1/9 does, and this one doesn't seem to warrant a standalone article. Any potential content would ultimately be
forks of the individual articles. A disambiguation page sets a bad precedent, in that we don't need such pages for potentially every concurrency, and there is no single redirect target, in that I see no rationale to pick one route over the other, even if I-20 is considered a "major" Interstate. --Kinut/c23:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)reply
comment I have brought this back to a minimal version of what it said before the IMO wrong-headed disambiguation version. I have no opinion as to notability, but kept or not the article should be reasonable.
Mangoe (
talk)
03:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment—as shown now, the "article" fails
WP:GNG as a topic distinct from the two overlapping Interstates, and this version of the "article" should definitely be deleted. Based on page views, it's an unlikely search topic to warrant the disambiguation page. Imzadi 1979→07:54, 24 June 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.