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. --
MelanieN (
talk) 15:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)reply
The article does not establish a claim to notability under the
WP:GNG standard for the concept that this collection of roads has this status. The underlying roads may be notable as individual state highways (per years of precedent noted at
WP:ROADOUTCOMES), but without the "significant coverage in multiple, independent, third-party sources" to establish the notability of the concept, and notability cannot be inherited (per
WP:NOTINHERITED) from the underlying highways. As it is, this article relies solely on a
WP:SPS to establish the existence of the concept.
This is a contested PROD that was contested by the article creator who erroneously thinks that he has to be the one who published the source for it to be self-published. Imzadi 1979→ 21:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Strong delete. The sourcing provided does not come anywhere close to meeting
WP:RS. Ultimately, there is zero evidence to corroborate the statement that this "unofficial" beltway is "widely known among locals" (as someone who lives in San Antonio, I can say it's not), and thus this violates
WP:V. --Kinut/c 23:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - Multiple searches found nothing and that included News, Books and browser. I live in Texas as well but not San Antonio but I can say this road is not significant or notable.
SwisterTwistertalk 05:20, 15 May 2015 (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.
The result was
Delete. --
MelanieN (
talk) 15:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)reply
The article does not establish a claim to notability under the
WP:GNG standard for the concept that this collection of roads has this status. The underlying roads may be notable as individual state highways (per years of precedent noted at
WP:ROADOUTCOMES), but without the "significant coverage in multiple, independent, third-party sources" to establish the notability of the concept, and notability cannot be inherited (per
WP:NOTINHERITED) from the underlying highways. As it is, this article relies solely on a
WP:SPS to establish the existence of the concept.
This is a contested PROD that was contested by the article creator who erroneously thinks that he has to be the one who published the source for it to be self-published. Imzadi 1979→ 21:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Strong delete. The sourcing provided does not come anywhere close to meeting
WP:RS. Ultimately, there is zero evidence to corroborate the statement that this "unofficial" beltway is "widely known among locals" (as someone who lives in San Antonio, I can say it's not), and thus this violates
WP:V. --Kinut/c 23:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - Multiple searches found nothing and that included News, Books and browser. I live in Texas as well but not San Antonio but I can say this road is not significant or notable.
SwisterTwistertalk 05:20, 15 May 2015 (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.