Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Opposition to Maryland Route 200: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:06, 6 March 2011 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,363 editsm Dating comment by Cpzilliacus - "Added reason for keeping article"← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:56, 28 January 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(41 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''merge to ]'''. (]) ] ] 15:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
===]=== ===]===
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|P}}


:{{la|Opposition to Maryland Route 200}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>) :{{la|Opposition to Maryland Route 200}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>)
:({{Find sources|Opposition to Maryland Route 200}}) :({{Find sources|Opposition to Maryland Route 200}})
Do not need an article to ramble on about the opposition of the road. This could be condensed into a paragraph in the ] article. <span style="background:#604007; padding:2px">''']]]'''</span> 04:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Do not need an article to ramble on about the opposition of the road. This could be condensed into a paragraph in the ] article. <span style="background:#604007; padding:2px">''']]]'''</span> 04:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


*'''Delete''' horribly NPOV, tons of quotes, should be covered elsewhere. Not sure if anything can be salvaged here to be merged. --''']]]''' 05:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC) *<s>'''Delete'''</s> '''Merge''' horribly NPOV, tons of quotes, should be covered elsewhere. Not sure if anything can be salvaged here to be merged, though, the content may need to be rewritten. --''']]]''' 05:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


* '''Keep''' <S>or '''merge back into parent article'''</S>. The article is well-sourced, and there was significant opposition to the highway while it was in the planning stages. We wouldn't be having this discussion if the section had not been split out of ] in July 2009 for being so large, and so if we don't keep the material on this title, it should be condensed and merged back to the main article about the highway. ] (]) 05:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC) * '''Keep''' <S>or '''merge back into parent article'''</S>. The article is well-sourced, and there was significant opposition to the highway while it was in the planning stages. We wouldn't be having this discussion if the section had not been split out of ] in July 2009 for being so large, and so if we don't keep the material on this title, it should be condensed and merged back to the main article about the highway. ] (]) 05:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 14: Line 20:
***I wrote much of it, and I do '''not''' consider myself to be the best writer out there (and I appreciate comments above and below). Opposition to this highway is one of the major (maybe '''the''' major reason?) that construction on the road did not start until about 2008, and that opposition '''needs''' to be documented. It also documents a '''very''' important policy issue in Prince George's and Montgomery Counties from about 1970 to 2008. I '''probably''' would prefer it being part of the main Md. 200 article but I don't feel strongly either way. ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 18:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> ***I wrote much of it, and I do '''not''' consider myself to be the best writer out there (and I appreciate comments above and below). Opposition to this highway is one of the major (maybe '''the''' major reason?) that construction on the road did not start until about 2008, and that opposition '''needs''' to be documented. It also documents a '''very''' important policy issue in Prince George's and Montgomery Counties from about 1970 to 2008. I '''probably''' would prefer it being part of the main Md. 200 article but I don't feel strongly either way. ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 18:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


*'''Keep''' I strongly disagree with Dough4872's contention that this article could be condensed into a paragraph in the MD 200 article. The opposition (lowercase letter O) to MD 200 is well documented, very in-depth, and an integral part of the history of the highway. I recognize and fully agree that the article itself is none of the qualities in the last sentence, is poorly written, and violates many, many of Misplaced Pages's guidelines. That does not mean the content is insignificant. Whatever our reaction to what is in the article now, we must recognize that this article has great potential as a standalone article if it is done right. This is a process that will take a lot of time and energy and involve the work of multiple editors. The information in the article should be kept and gradually refined until this article starts to become a product from which we do not recoil and perhaps have some pride in. <span style="border:1px solid #329691;background:#228B22;">''']]'''</span> 05:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC) *'''Keep''' I strongly disagree with Dough4872's contention that this article could be condensed into a paragraph in the MD 200 article. The opposition (lowercase letter O) to MD 200 is well documented, very in-depth, and an integral part of the history of the highway. I recognize and fully agree that the article itself is none of the qualities in the last sentence, is poorly written, and violates many, many of Misplaced Pages's guidelines. That does not mean the content is insignificant. Whatever our reaction to what is in the article now, we must recognize that this article has great potential as a standalone article if it is done right. This is a process that will take a lot of time and energy and involve the work of multiple editors. The information in the article should be kept and gradually refined until this article starts to become a product from which we do not recoil and perhaps have some pride in. <span style="border:1px solid #329691;background:#228B22;">''']]'''</span> 05:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**There has been much opposition to other highways in the United States. Do you support having "Opposition" articles for each and every one? --''']]]''' 05:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC) **There has been much opposition to other highways in the United States. Do you support having "Opposition" articles for each and every one? --''']]]''' 05:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
***I am not supporting Opposition to Route X articles here, although I realize what I said can be interpreted as such. I dislike the fact that this article exists. Rather than trying to set a precedent, I am arguing against hastily getting rid of this particular article at this point in time. I am arguing for giving this article a chance to become something much better than it is right now. In that '''process''', the editors may find there is sufficient information for this article to exist to fulfill Misplaced Pages's guideline of summary style. Or the editors may find the information in this article would better work being integrated into the history section of the MD 200 article or included in the History of Maryland Route 200 article. I argue for keeping this article at this moment in time because I do not agree with the rationale provided by the originator of this deletion discussion and, frankly, think it is hasty and poorly conceived. <span style="border:1px solid #329691;background:#228B22;">''']]'''</span> 05:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC) ***I am not supporting Opposition to Route X articles here, although I realize what I said can be interpreted as such. I dislike the fact that this article exists. Rather than trying to set a precedent, I am arguing against hastily getting rid of this particular article at this point in time. I am arguing for giving this article a chance to become something much better than it is right now. In that '''process''', the editors may find there is sufficient information for this article to exist to fulfill Misplaced Pages's guideline of summary style. Or the editors may find the information in this article would better work being integrated into the history section of the MD 200 article or included in the History of Maryland Route 200 article. I argue for keeping this article at this moment in time because I do not agree with the rationale provided by the originator of this deletion discussion and, frankly, think it is hasty and poorly conceived. <span style="border:1px solid #329691;background:#228B22;">''']]'''</span> 05:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
****Then the article can be sandboxed. As it stands right now the article is horribly unencyclopedic, and by definition, the scope is NPOV. --''']]]''' 06:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC) ****Then the article can be sandboxed. As it stands right now the article is horribly unencyclopedic, and by definition, the scope is NPOV. --''']]]''' 06:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
*** (ec) That's a bit of a loaded question, because you know full well that no one would support a wholesale creation of opposition articles for every single highway project that ever had opposition. However, if a section about opposition to a highway is well-sourced and becomes too large for the article that it is in, it should be split out as the need arises. ] (]) 05:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC) *** (ec) That's a bit of a loaded question, because you know full well that no one would support a wholesale creation of opposition articles for every single highway project that ever had opposition. However, if a section about opposition to a highway is well-sourced and becomes too large for the article that it is in, it should be split out as the need arises. ] (]) 05:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
****Well, the point here is that I'm sure that MD 200 isn't the most opposed highway in the U.S. So why does MD 200 get an Opposition article when no other USRD article has one? What makes MD 200 so special? --''']]]''' 06:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC) ****Well, the point here is that I'm sure that MD 200 isn't the most opposed highway in the U.S. So why does MD 200 get an Opposition article when no other USRD article has one? What makes MD 200 so special? --''']]]''' 06:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Merge and redirect''' to the original route 200 article. A minor note is the South Pasadena gap section of ], but more importantly, the article does not need a split for size at this point. --] (] and ]) 06:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC) *'''Merge and redirect''' to the original route 200 article. A minor note is the South Pasadena gap section of ], but more importantly, the article does not need a split for size at this point. --] (] and ]) 06:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Summarize, merge and redirect''' to the parent article. As a case study, ] in the Grand Rapids area of Michigan was proposed in the 1940s, seriously proposed in the 1960s, added to state transportation planning and funded by a gas tax increase in the 1970s, studied and opposed in the 1980s, finally engineered in the 1990s and built between 1997–2004. The article on the highway covers all of the events without undue weight, without NPOV issues, and it does so in one article. There are way too many quotations, and just too much detail that in necessary for this highway. It borders on, if not outright breaches, ]. Major cleanup is needed. My tool of choice would be a machete, not a scalpel. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;" >''']&nbsp;]'''</span> 06:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC) *'''Summarize, merge and redirect''' to the parent article. As a case study, ] in the Grand Rapids area of Michigan was proposed in the 1940s, seriously proposed in the 1960s, added to state transportation planning and funded by a gas tax increase in the 1970s, studied and opposed in the 1980s, finally engineered in the 1990s and built between 1997–2004. The article on the highway covers all of the events without undue weight, without NPOV issues, and it does so in one article. There are way too many quotations, and just too much detail that in necessary for this highway. It borders on, if not outright breaches, ]. Major cleanup is needed. My tool of choice would be a machete, not a scalpel. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;" >''']&nbsp;]'''</span> 06:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' This article and the history section were spun down from the main MD 200 article in July 2009 per ]. The main article is now 56K, the history is 39K and this article is 40K. Also, a merger proposal was left open for 16 months without a merger back into the main MD 200 article. This top has drawn considerable press attention for three decades and has been a major topic of local political debate and election campaigns. I nominated the history article for GA, which prompt a few editors active in WikiProject US Roads to get involved in the three, and to quick fail the GA nomination. We must apply general Misplaced Pages policies and realize that the topic covered here - major environmental litigation and political activism - is beyond the scope of any one WikiProject. ] governs and the press coverage that the opposition to MD 200 drew over the past 30 years is sufficient to establish the notability of this subject. ] (]) 07:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC) * '''Keep''' This article and the history section were spun down from the main MD 200 article in July 2009 per ]. The main article is now 56K, the history is 39K and this article is 40K. Also, a merger proposal was left open for 16 months without a merger back into the main MD 200 article. This top has drawn considerable press attention for three decades and has been a major topic of local political debate and election campaigns. I nominated the history article for GA, which prompt a few editors active in WikiProject US Roads to get involved in the three, and to quick fail the GA nomination. We must apply general Misplaced Pages policies and realize that the topic covered here - major environmental litigation and political activism - is beyond the scope of any one WikiProject. ] governs and the press coverage that the opposition to MD 200 drew over the past 30 years is sufficient to establish the notability of this subject. ] (]) 07:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
**All of the items you cite about MD-200 also apply to M-6 in Michigan, yet one single, concise article was written that does not give undue weight to any one part of the subject, nor did it require the creation of subarticles. I have several dozen additional news articles at my disposal on the South Beltline Freeway, an article you reviewed at GAN, but that doesn't mean I need to clog the article with more and more and more detail until it bursts at the seams. There are two options to deal with large articles. One is to split them up. Another is to condense the information to avoid giving ] to topics. I don't believe that MD-200 needs three articles in total for a 20-mile highway in a suburban setting that's been proposed for 40+ years and spawned major opposition and significant press coverage, when the analogous situation in Michigan is done in 300 words in a 38-kilobyte article. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;" >''']&nbsp;]'''</span> 08:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC) **All of the items you cite about MD-200 also apply to M-6 in Michigan, yet one single, concise article was written that does not give undue weight to any one part of the subject, nor did it require the creation of subarticles. I have several dozen additional news articles at my disposal on the South Beltline Freeway, an article you reviewed at GAN, but that doesn't mean I need to clog the article with more and more and more detail until it bursts at the seams. There are two options to deal with large articles. One is to split them up. Another is to condense the information to avoid giving ] to topics. I don't believe that MD-200 needs three articles in total for a 20-mile highway in a suburban setting that's been proposed for 40+ years and spawned major opposition and significant press coverage, when the analogous situation in Michigan is done in 3000 words in a 38-kilobyte article. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;" >''']&nbsp;]'''</span> 08:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
:::That comparison requires an analysis of the extent of press coverage and reliable sources for the opposition of the two projects. Is M-6 become a big issue in a state-wide campaign for governor? If so, I would support a separate article. The only legitimate concern is avoiding a POV-fork. I would not want to see the proponents of a project isolating the criticism and opposition into a "Opposition of Highway X" article. That is not the case here. This article meets notability and complies with ] so it should be kept. ] (]) 02:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': The article under discussion here has been {{tl|rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the ]. ] ] 07:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)</small> *<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': The article under discussion here has been {{tl|rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the ]. ] ] 07:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)</small>
*'''Comment''' - I have merged the information from this article into the opposition section of the ] article. <span style="background:#604007; padding:2px">''']]]'''</span> 02:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
**And I've undone your merge since there is no consensus to do so, but I have taken the merged text and placed it here, which is still a very substantial article that takes care of the quote farm problem and explains it all very well. This is a perfect example of one of the rewrites I was talking about. Thank you for proving my point. ] (]) 03:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
***My merge solution was intended to show that this article can be deleted as the information would be covered elsewhere in a condensed format. Now this article looks awkward by using my condensed section version. <span style="background:#604007; padding:2px">''']]]'''</span> 03:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
****Then let's give it a few more once-overs. That's why I said "a few rewrites". ] (]) 04:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
*****You still fail to show how this information cannot be adequately covered in the MD 200 article. --''']]]''' 04:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- ] (]) 13:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)</small>
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- ] (]) 13:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)</small>
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- ] (]) 13:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)</small>
*'''Keep''' in some way shape or form. The ICC has been one of the most contentious road projects in the DC area, so the article is clearly notable. On the other hand, the amount of text is enormous and too large to cut and paste merge back into the original article. I wonder if it might make more sense to have an "ICC controversies" article instead that included the existence controversy and maybe the bike lane controversy? I would also support a condensed merge. ] (]) 14:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
**The MD 200 article along with the history article also need to be condensed, cutting back on excessive quotes and redundant information. With the material from this article merged with the condensed main MD 200 article, the article size will not be too bad. <span style="background:#604007; padding:2px">''']]]'''</span> 17:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
::::Once notability has been established, the AfD inquiry is done. Editors are then free to add sources and details as they see fit to the article. Again, this article is beyond the scope of any one WikiProject, and general Misplaced Pages standards should govern its further development, regardless of the preference of any particular Wikiproject. ] (]) 02:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::The use of excessive quotes and detail is still poor prose quality, regardless of WikiProjects. <span style="background:#604007; padding:2px">''']]]'''</span> 03:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - A major objection seems to be the extensive use of quotations in the article. However, ] says, "When dealing with a controversial subject. As per the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy, biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. Quotations are the simplest form of attribution. Editor of controversial subject should quote the actual spoken or written words to refer to the most controversial ideas. Controversial ideas must never appear to be 'from Misplaced Pages'." I believe the use of quotes and the resulting length in the article is appropriate. Condensation with a "machete" is not needed here. ] (]) 03:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
**There is no need to use direct quotes when what is being quoted can be summarized. <span style="background:#604007; padding:2px">''']]]'''</span> 03:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
***The quotation from ] takes a different view. ] (]) 07:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
****While the quotes follow the guidelines, they are still not needed as there is no need for direct quotes on this subject. <span style="background:#604007; padding:2px">''']]]'''</span> 14:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - The main measure of notability for WP is if the subject has "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources." So people who want to save the article should be looking for sources which tell the story of the opposition, not references which tell the the individual facts of the story. I feel confident that the former is out there. Currently the article is full of the latter. If the story of the opposition can be shown to have received "significant coverage" such as two or three feature articles in a major newspapers or periodicals, then it should kept. - ] (]) 03:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
**MD 200 has received notable coverage concerning opposition. However, this coverage can be mentioned in the main MD 200 article. No other U.S. road has a separate opposition article. <span style="background:#604007; padding:2px">''']]]'''</span> 03:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
***] says (and I quote), articles greater than 60K "Probably should be divided" The size of MD 200 was raised on its talk page and the consensus was to split it into three. This is one of the split articles, so it should be separate from the main MD 200 article. The second argument regarding "No other U.S. road has a separate opposition article" makes no sense. Montgomery and PG Counties are 32% of Maryland's population, so a high portion of Marylanders are affected by MD 200. The ICC was an issue in the campaigns for Governor. Just because ] does not have a in-depth article does not justify stopping editors interested in writing multiple high-quality articles about ] from doing so. The test is not whether the article has a depth of coverage of interest to one WikiProject — the proper test is notability. If people interested in Maryland politics and Maryland history want to generate in depth coverage of the Intercounty Connector, then WikiProject US Roads has no right to stop them or to insist on only superficial coverage. ] (]) 07:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
****Most of the stuff in the MD 200 article isn't encyclopedic and doesn't belong there. --''']]]''' 07:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
*****That is a content dispute question that is not resolvable at AfD. It is also '''not''' governed by ]. ] (]) 13:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Merge and redirect''' with a significant shortening back to ]. This is an overly detailed content fork, and having this as an independent article is a POV issue. It should be summarized in the main article. ''']''' <sup> ] | ]</sup> 13:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Merge this and ] into ]''' The actual content of the two subsidiary articles is not that large; ] has simply made far more material available to the online researcher on a controversial road with a complex history, and in each case most of the content of each article is in references which are pretty much duplicate two and three times over. There's no real need to split these out especially since the historical/controversial matter is really what is of most interest; the niggling detail needs to be cut back. ] (]) 16:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

*'''Merge''' into ] - the latter is only 50kb total and can soak it up. We have lots of bigger articles. ] (] '''·''' ]) 23:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

*'''Merge''' - nothing really warrants this being its own article. The article on ] would still be of an acceptable length if this information were to be placed there. Still, nothing warrants a delete. --] (]/]) 23:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' The question that needs to be decided here is whether the topic is encyclopedic, which is established by guidelines, and which it is.&nbsp; The merge back to the base article is best left unresolved here, leaving that decision up to the involved editors.&nbsp; The POV treatment in the Opposition section of the main article speaks to the decision that was made for a separate article.&nbsp; Regarding the current version of the article, it has been properly sanitized, removing POV and excessive quotes, but probably needs some zest added with responsible and appropriate short opinionated quotes.&nbsp; ] (]) 22:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
:'''Comment'''&nbsp; Regarding the content fork, and any remaining POV fork contentions now that the article has been sanitized, these are discussed in ]. ] states, "Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view."&nbsp; ] (]) 05:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' or perhaps '''merge'''. The current article suffers a lot from ]. The subject of the controversy over the construction of this road definitely should be covered, but at least as of now what is at ] and ] is better written. Furthermore, ] (section containing "Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally") would seem to advocate a title like "controversy over" and/or the "history of" one, rather than "opposition to". I don't think the coverage of this subject should be shorter, but I would focus more on the various pros and cons and less on the "on such-and-such a date, so-and-so a politician had a news conference" kind of stuff. ] (]) 14:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
::FYI, see ] and ], where two-dozen "protestors" spray-painted the state capital building in 2005.&nbsp; In comparison to "opposition", "controversy" seems to be an idea that people can't be opposed to a road without also being controversial about it (could be true, seems POV).&nbsp; ] (]) 19:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Actually, "controversy" is not a POV term. Wiktionary defines it as "A debate, discussion of opposing opinions; strife." I would say that by that definition, this was a controversial road, and I would support such a rename, because it actually is a bit more neutral than the current "opposition to" title. ] (]) 20:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
::::I'm not a fan for keeping this article separate, but were it to be, it needs to be "Controversy of" or "Criticism of" or something more neutral. --''']]]''' 20:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::I was thinking ]. "Controversy" does not take an "of". ] (]) 20:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Merge and redirect''' (I guess it could be a plausible search term) per Jim Miller, who sums it up succinctly. ] (]) 14:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 19:56, 28 January 2023

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 Maryland Route 200. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant 15:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Opposition to Maryland Route 200

Opposition to 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 an article to ramble on about the opposition of the road. This could be condensed into a paragraph in the Maryland Route 200 article. Dough4872 04:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete Merge horribly NPOV, tons of quotes, should be covered elsewhere. Not sure if anything can be salvaged here to be merged, though, the content may need to be rewritten. --Rschen7754 05:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge back into parent article. The article is well-sourced, and there was significant opposition to the highway while it was in the planning stages. We wouldn't be having this discussion if the section had not been split out of Maryland Route 200 in July 2009 for being so large, and so if we don't keep the material on this title, it should be condensed and merged back to the main article about the highway. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Half of the article is quotes (a Misplaced Pages no-no), and it is horribly NPOV. "Well-sourced" is not the only criterion for a decent article. --Rschen7754 05:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Then one can certainly refine the article without deletion. There was indeed significant opposition to building the highway, and to delete the article in whole would be a back-handed way of dumping the content about the opposition. It's certainly encyclopedic and sourced, but could certainly stand to go through a few rewrites. That's what I'm getting at - put it through a few rewrites and perhaps a merge, but don't dump the subject matter outright. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I am changing my !vote to a straight keep, but that said, the article certainly needs a few rewrites. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I wrote much of it, and I do not consider myself to be the best writer out there (and I appreciate comments above and below). Opposition to this highway is one of the major (maybe the major reason?) that construction on the road did not start until about 2008, and that opposition needs to be documented. It also documents a very important policy issue in Prince George's and Montgomery Counties from about 1970 to 2008. I probably would prefer it being part of the main Md. 200 article but I don't feel strongly either way. Cpzilliacus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC).
  • Keep I strongly disagree with Dough4872's contention that this article could be condensed into a paragraph in the MD 200 article. The opposition (lowercase letter O) to MD 200 is well documented, very in-depth, and an integral part of the history of the highway. I recognize and fully agree that the article itself is none of the qualities in the last sentence, is poorly written, and violates many, many of Misplaced Pages's guidelines. That does not mean the content is insignificant. Whatever our reaction to what is in the article now, we must recognize that this article has great potential as a standalone article if it is done right. This is a process that will take a lot of time and energy and involve the work of multiple editors. The information in the article should be kept and gradually refined until this article starts to become a product from which we do not recoil and perhaps have some pride in.  VC  05:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
    • There has been much opposition to other highways in the United States. Do you support having "Opposition" articles for each and every one? --Rschen7754 05:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I am not supporting Opposition to Route X articles here, although I realize what I said can be interpreted as such. I dislike the fact that this article exists. Rather than trying to set a precedent, I am arguing against hastily getting rid of this particular article at this point in time. I am arguing for giving this article a chance to become something much better than it is right now. In that process, the editors may find there is sufficient information for this article to exist to fulfill Misplaced Pages's guideline of summary style. Or the editors may find the information in this article would better work being integrated into the history section of the MD 200 article or included in the History of Maryland Route 200 article. I argue for keeping this article at this moment in time because I do not agree with the rationale provided by the originator of this deletion discussion and, frankly, think it is hasty and poorly conceived.  VC  05:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Then the article can be sandboxed. As it stands right now the article is horribly unencyclopedic, and by definition, the scope is NPOV. --Rschen7754 06:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
      • (ec) That's a bit of a loaded question, because you know full well that no one would support a wholesale creation of opposition articles for every single highway project that ever had opposition. However, if a section about opposition to a highway is well-sourced and becomes too large for the article that it is in, it should be split out as the need arises. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Well, the point here is that I'm sure that MD 200 isn't the most opposed highway in the U.S. So why does MD 200 get an Opposition article when no other USRD article has one? What makes MD 200 so special? --Rschen7754 06:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to the original route 200 article. A minor note is the South Pasadena gap section of Interstate 710, but more importantly, the article does not need a split for size at this point. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Summarize, merge and redirect to the parent article. As a case study, M-6, the South Beltline Freeway in the Grand Rapids area of Michigan was proposed in the 1940s, seriously proposed in the 1960s, added to state transportation planning and funded by a gas tax increase in the 1970s, studied and opposed in the 1980s, finally engineered in the 1990s and built between 1997–2004. The article on the highway covers all of the events without undue weight, without NPOV issues, and it does so in one article. There are way too many quotations, and just too much detail that in necessary for this highway. It borders on, if not outright breaches, WP:RECENTISM. Major cleanup is needed. My tool of choice would be a machete, not a scalpel. Imzadi 1979 → 06:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep This article and the history section were spun down from the main MD 200 article in July 2009 per WP:SIZE. The main article is now 56K, the history is 39K and this article is 40K. Also, a merger proposal was left open for 16 months without a merger back into the main MD 200 article. This top has drawn considerable press attention for three decades and has been a major topic of local political debate and election campaigns. I nominated the history article for GA, which prompt a few editors active in WikiProject US Roads to get involved in the three, and to quick fail the GA nomination. We must apply general Misplaced Pages policies and realize that the topic covered here - major environmental litigation and political activism - is beyond the scope of any one WikiProject. WP:GNG governs and the press coverage that the opposition to MD 200 drew over the past 30 years is sufficient to establish the notability of this subject. Racepacket (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
    • All of the items you cite about MD-200 also apply to M-6 in Michigan, yet one single, concise article was written that does not give undue weight to any one part of the subject, nor did it require the creation of subarticles. I have several dozen additional news articles at my disposal on the South Beltline Freeway, an article you reviewed at GAN, but that doesn't mean I need to clog the article with more and more and more detail until it bursts at the seams. There are two options to deal with large articles. One is to split them up. Another is to condense the information to avoid giving undue weight to topics. I don't believe that MD-200 needs three articles in total for a 20-mile highway in a suburban setting that's been proposed for 40+ years and spawned major opposition and significant press coverage, when the analogous situation in Michigan is done in 3000 words in a 38-kilobyte article. Imzadi 1979 → 08:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
That comparison requires an analysis of the extent of press coverage and reliable sources for the opposition of the two projects. Is M-6 become a big issue in a state-wide campaign for governor? If so, I would support a separate article. The only legitimate concern is avoiding a POV-fork. I would not want to see the proponents of a project isolating the criticism and opposition into a "Opposition of Highway X" article. That is not the case here. This article meets notability and complies with WP:SIZE so it should be kept. Racepacket (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep in some way shape or form. The ICC has been one of the most contentious road projects in the DC area, so the article is clearly notable. On the other hand, the amount of text is enormous and too large to cut and paste merge back into the original article. I wonder if it might make more sense to have an "ICC controversies" article instead that included the existence controversy and maybe the bike lane controversy? I would also support a condensed merge. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
    • The MD 200 article along with the history article also need to be condensed, cutting back on excessive quotes and redundant information. With the material from this article merged with the condensed main MD 200 article, the article size will not be too bad. Dough4872 17:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Once notability has been established, the AfD inquiry is done. Editors are then free to add sources and details as they see fit to the article. Again, this article is beyond the scope of any one WikiProject, and general Misplaced Pages standards should govern its further development, regardless of the preference of any particular Wikiproject. Racepacket (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The use of excessive quotes and detail is still poor prose quality, regardless of WikiProjects. Dough4872 03:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - A major objection seems to be the extensive use of quotations in the article. However, WP:QUOTE says, "When dealing with a controversial subject. As per the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy, biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. Quotations are the simplest form of attribution. Editor of controversial subject should quote the actual spoken or written words to refer to the most controversial ideas. Controversial ideas must never appear to be 'from Misplaced Pages'." I believe the use of quotes and the resulting length in the article is appropriate. Condensation with a "machete" is not needed here. Racepacket (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - The main measure of notability for WP is if the subject has "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources." So people who want to save the article should be looking for sources which tell the story of the opposition, not references which tell the the individual facts of the story. I feel confident that the former is out there. Currently the article is full of the latter. If the story of the opposition can be shown to have received "significant coverage" such as two or three feature articles in a major newspapers or periodicals, then it should kept. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
    • MD 200 has received notable coverage concerning opposition. However, this coverage can be mentioned in the main MD 200 article. No other U.S. road has a separate opposition article. Dough4872 03:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
      • WP:SPLIT says (and I quote), articles greater than 60K "Probably should be divided" The size of MD 200 was raised on its talk page and the consensus was to split it into three. This is one of the split articles, so it should be separate from the main MD 200 article. The second argument regarding "No other U.S. road has a separate opposition article" makes no sense. Montgomery and PG Counties are 32% of Maryland's population, so a high portion of Marylanders are affected by MD 200. The ICC was an issue in the campaigns for Governor. Just because Grand Valley State University does not have a in-depth article does not justify stopping editors interested in writing multiple high-quality articles about Harvard University from doing so. The test is not whether the article has a depth of coverage of interest to one WikiProject — the proper test is notability. If people interested in Maryland politics and Maryland history want to generate in depth coverage of the Intercounty Connector, then WikiProject US Roads has no right to stop them or to insist on only superficial coverage. Racepacket (talk) 07:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect with a significant shortening back to Maryland Route 200. This is an overly detailed content fork, and having this as an independent article is a POV issue. It should be summarized in the main article. Jim Miller 13:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge this and History of Maryland Route 200 into Maryland Route 200 The actual content of the two subsidiary articles is not that large; WP:RECENTISM has simply made far more material available to the online researcher on a controversial road with a complex history, and in each case most of the content of each article is in references which are pretty much duplicate two and three times over. There's no real need to split these out especially since the historical/controversial matter is really what is of most interest; the niggling detail needs to be cut back. Mangoe (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge - nothing really warrants this being its own article. The article on MD 200 would still be of an acceptable length if this information were to be placed there. Still, nothing warrants a delete. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 23:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep The question that needs to be decided here is whether the topic is encyclopedic, which is established by guidelines, and which it is.  The merge back to the base article is best left unresolved here, leaving that decision up to the involved editors.  The POV treatment in the Opposition section of the main article speaks to the decision that was made for a separate article.  Regarding the current version of the article, it has been properly sanitized, removing POV and excessive quotes, but probably needs some zest added with responsible and appropriate short opinionated quotes.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment  Regarding the content fork, and any remaining POV fork contentions now that the article has been sanitized, these are discussed in WP:Content forking. Misplaced Pages:Content forking#Articles whose subject is a POV states, "Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view."  Unscintillating (talk) 05:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete or perhaps merge. The current article suffers a lot from WP:PROSELINE. The subject of the controversy over the construction of this road definitely should be covered, but at least as of now what is at Maryland Route 200 and History of Maryland Route 200 is better written. Furthermore, WP:NPOV (section containing "Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally") would seem to advocate a title like "controversy over" and/or the "history of" one, rather than "opposition to". I don't think the coverage of this subject should be shorter, but I would focus more on the various pros and cons and less on the "on such-and-such a date, so-and-so a politician had a news conference" kind of stuff. Kingdon (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
FYI, see Interstate 69 in Indiana#Controversy and Interstate 69 in Indiana#Protests, where two-dozen "protestors" spray-painted the state capital building in 2005.  In comparison to "opposition", "controversy" seems to be an idea that people can't be opposed to a road without also being controversial about it (could be true, seems POV).  Unscintillating (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, "controversy" is not a POV term. Wiktionary defines it as "A debate, discussion of opposing opinions; strife." I would say that by that definition, this was a controversial road, and I would support such a rename, because it actually is a bit more neutral than the current "opposition to" title. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not a fan for keeping this article separate, but were it to be, it needs to be "Controversy of" or "Criticism of" or something more neutral. --Rschen7754 20:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking Controversy over Maryland Route 200. "Controversy" does not take an "of". SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
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.