Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yaksar (talk | contribs) at 07:15, 6 March 2011 (added ARSnote template). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 horribly NPOV, tons of quotes, should be covered elsewhere. Not sure if anything can be salvaged here to be merged. --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)

• 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)

• Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. Yaksar (let's chat) 07:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Places and transportation)
• AfD debates