Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Interstate that started out with multiple discontiguous segments

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 17:47, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

List of Interstate that started out with multiple discontiguous segments

I'm not oppossed to articles about highways per se, but if someone were to ask me for an example of an unencyclopedic list, this is what I'd use. Slac speak up! 00:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
An utterly meaningless list -- any Interstate highway that was built between multiple states would have been built in segments. More interesting would be such a list of currently discontinuous such highways -- I-95 would be one good example. It has a break in New Jersey and is likely to stay that way for at least the next decade. Haikupoet 00:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- See List of gaps in Interstate Highways. --SPUI (talk) 12:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There was a time when some Interstates had discontiguous segments (e.g. discrete freeway segments). When I-75 started, it had an independent segment between Grayling, MI and Michigan State Highway 32 near Gaylord, MI, so keep. --SuperDude 01:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's not a reason for keeping. How is this information notable? Slac speak up! 01:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Many Interstates had, or started with, discontinous segments, plus the exact definition is a bit nebulous. Also problematic title. Particularly notable or unique Interstates in this regard could probably be mentioned on the main Interstate Highway article, instead of a separate article. Niteowlneils 01:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Please, please don't let Wikipedia degenerate into the sum of all trivia. -- Dcfleck 01:41, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
Delete. An article about the building of the Interstates, describing the process of integrating multiple segments, could be encyclopedic. This list, however, has virtually zero information content. FreplySpang (talk) 02:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Roadcruft, trivial, etc. android↔talk 02:22, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete for reasons stated. I'm more convinced than ever that SuperDude115 and SamuraiClinton are one and the same. Result: More cruft on VfD. Sigh... - Lucky 6.9 02:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, almost every Interstate fits here. The information could be included in the articles about the Interstates, along with opening dates. --SPUI (talk) 12:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as per SPUI. RussBlau 19:09, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn. Rick K 21:18, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete but perhaps list as requested article something along the line suggested by FreplySpang, unless (s)he can start it. Maybe it should just be a section in the parent article as Niteowlneils suggested, unless there are enough reference materials available to write a good non-copyvio article. Barno 00:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Who would look this up?! --Idont Havaname 15:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Such lists are joke w/o encyclopedic value. Pavel Vozenilek 09:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge into List of Interstate Highways, or list on that page's talk page. Clearly someone found this information useful. Have you asked them why they added it before voting it for deletion? Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that it's not important in a certain field. Babe Ruth is a baseball god but if you don't know anything about baseball then you might think that he's unencyclopedic. If you are into highway construction or highway history then this list may have value. Any highway construction experts want to confirm or refute this? - Pioneer-12 12:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The only thing to merge would be one line saying every Interstate of sufficient length has had discontinuous segments as it was being built. And the creator (SuperDude115) commented above. I am a roadgeek and know a lot in this area, and this list is rather useless. --SPUI (talk) 13:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - I defer to SPUIs expert opinion as a roadgeek. Changing my vote to Delete - Pioneer-12
- SPUI is right. The thing is that while Interstates were built with 90% Federal funding, they were built by state highway departments, so there would be discontinuities anyway until the various parts were connected. Moreover, within states they were often built in segments. Haikupoet 16:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Note that something like this page would be useful, as it documents the specific cases when the in-between nonupgraded sections were actually signed as a TEMPORARY Interstate. It might be useful to have a page with more details of that (probably actually combined with a list of Interstates signed as FUTURE). More details would be nice, as some of these may have only existed on maps, while old signage photos could prove the existence (and believe me, those signage photos do often exist, though they are many times very hard to find - the state DOT is one option, as many have photolog systems). --SPUI (talk) 17:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - Ah, for instance [1] has two photos of temporary I-15 and I-15E shields. --SPUI (talk) 17:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.