Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:05, 17 March 2011

History of Maryland Route 200

History of Maryland Route 200 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Do not need separate article on history of route. Like the opposition article, the information can be condensed and covered in a section of the Maryland Route 200 article. Dough4872 23:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Although the 2 articles could be merged having a separate article relating to the history of the Road is ok as long as there is sufficient information and sources to do so and there seems to be plenty here. --Kumioko (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Merge We don't need a separate history article for a state highway article. No other highway article in the U.S. has this. --Rschen7754 01:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
• Also see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Opposition to Maryland Route 200. --Rschen7754 01:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Summarize, merge and redirect for the same reasons I gave at the previous AfD. Imzadi 1979 → 02:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
• Merge The MD 200 article is not so large that the content of this article needs to be split out of it.  VC  16:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - This article was created when applying WP:SPLIT on July 23, 2009. Recently, I attempted to improve the article by added a proper lead, adding a construction history section and conformed to WP:SS by repeating the lead as the "History" section of Maryland Route 200. I then nominated the article for GA, which drew the wrath of User:Rschen7754. His argument is that highways cannot have their history covered in an article separate from the main article on the highway. He demands that the historical, political and sociological aspects of a policy policy debate that has lasted three decades can only be viewed only through the distorted prism of the "highway buffs" that staff WikiProject U.S. Roads. His remarks on the talk page show a two-step plan: first to merge the the MD 200 article togther with the two daughter articles, and then to drastically edit the combined article back to minimize coverage of the controversy. His comrade Imzadi1979 proposed for after the merger "My serious suggestion is that if anything additional is added from here out to the articles, something minor is removed. For every new piece of information, a minor detail is removed, and transferred to the talk page. Every quotation, especially all of the block quotes, needs to be examined. Most of them should be paraphrased and summarized." This is exactly the opposite of WP:SPLIT, WP:SS and WP:EVENT all of which support in-depth coverage of this topic as a stand-alone article. Instead of bragging that other controversial highway article give only brief coverage to such disputes, we all should be asking whether there is a systematic pro-highway bias in Misplaced Pages's coverage of transportation controveries. Finally, I wish to note that WikiProject U.S. Roads frequently applies WP:SPLIT and WP:SS to generate separate state-specific articles for each state's segment of long-distance U.S. roads, even when they don't need to be split on account of article size. Racepacket (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Places and transportation)
• AfD debates