User talk:A Texas Historian/Forest Highway 61

This page was nominated for deletion on 20 June 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

Sources to Use[edit]

Proposed Deletion[edit]

Just as a note, this road is designated nationally and is in fact maintained by the National Forest Service, a national program. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 02:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because its designated by a national program doesn't automatically make it notable. This is a one-mile, lightly-traveled, borough-maintained road. Such roads fail the criteria at WP:USRD/NT. Dough 48 72 02:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then, technically, shouldn't articles such as Farm to Market Road 34 and Farm to Market Road 122 (I could come up with over a dozen) be deleted also. They are just secondary state highways, that are also short and lightly used. As the article states, parts of this highway are maintained by a national program. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 03:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The FM roads can have articles because they are state-maintained and part of a statewide system. National Forest Highways are given to virtually any road in a national forest, including lightly-traveled roads that are locally maintained. The general rule of thumb is that for a road to be notable enough for an article is that it should be state-maintained or part of a statewide numbering system. Dough 48 72 03:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The tension here is that FM 34 and FM 122 are state-maintained, and this roadway is borough-maintained (aka a county road). County roads traditionally have to demonstrate some measure of notability. For minor state highways or CRs, if we're systematically covering an entire system (say the County-Designated Highways in Michigan or the 500-series of CRs in New Jersey), each individual component may or may not require explicit notability if the system itself is. If we had to merge every state highway or county road, primary or secondary, into a single article on that system or subsystem, the result would violate WP:SIZE. We have yet to demonstrate that the Forest Highways have that level of notability. (Not all county road systems are notable either.) We really need to have a project-level discussion on several aspects related to Forest Highways. The three articles that exist for Michigan (FFH-13 is CDH H-13, FFH-16 is mismarked as a CDH called H-16 on state maps and FFH-42 is a National Forest Scenic Byway) and the one that exists for Puerto Rico (a territorial highway maintained by the commonwealth) have some other factor that lends them a level of notability for coverage. Imzadi 1979 → 03:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying that it doesn't seem correct that a road that's not even 200 yards long (Farm to Market Road 742) is considered notable whereas a road that is over a mile-and-a-half long isn't, just because it is most maintained by a borough. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 03:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are countless roads that do not meet the notability criteria that are like this. It is a mile and a half road that dead ends at a campground, is mostly unpaved, has light traffic, and is borough-maintained. Dough 48 72 03:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the Gravina Island Highway qualify for deletion then? It is only three miles long, seldom sees a vehicle, and is maintained by the Ketchikan Gateway Borough. Yet, it is considered notable. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 03:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gravina Island Highway may be notable enough because of the Bridge to Nowhere controversy. Dough 48 72 03:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Nome-Council Highway, the Nome-Teller Highway and the Nome-Taylor Highway are all unpaved, seldom used, barely maintained roads, yet are listed on the Alaska Routes page, and would be considered notable enough to get their own articles, seemingly just because of their length. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 03:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Length is only one piece of the puzzle. The maintaining agency or what system contains the roadway is another piece of the puzzle. You have to take them together with other characteristics. There are too many Farm to Market Roads to list them in one article, even condensed purely down to a table like List of state trunklines in Michigan that has the barest details. WP:SIZE says that we would have to break the list up somehow. We proposed condensing them all down, WP:USRD/RCS-style like List of County-Designated Highways in Michigan, but that proved unpopular and untenable for a number of reasons. So the FM/RMs get separate articles because of those concerns. But none of that impacts this article meeting the criteria and guidelines for inclusion. As I said, individual Forest Highways have not been considered notable by default like state highways because they are essentially county roads in national forests that the US Forest Service has decided to number. Imzadi 1979 → 04:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to point out that the three highways mentioned above are nearly identical to this road, except that they are not numbered and a lot longer. They are considered notable, though, which, in all fairness, does not make sense. I would also like to point out that if I were to rename this article "Primrose Spur Road" and transfer it to the U.S. Streets WikiProject, it would most likely be kept due to it's historic and recreational value to the surrounding community. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 04:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, renaming/retagging wouldn't change the core issues with notability. As I said, there isn't a magic length that confers notability, so your comparison isn't applicable. The core questions are mandated by WP:GNG, the general notability guideline: is there significant coverage in reliable sources? Are those sources independent of the subject? The state highway systems, National (Forest) Scenic Byways and various specific county-level systems meet that threshold. The individual articles on the components of those systems are then part of a systematic approach to covering the topic areas, and independent articles are established because, in the case of Michigan, you can't merge the content of over 200 state highway articles (plus the lists) together over size concerns. The primary county road system in Marquette County has not been established to be specifically notable, however two roads have (CR 492 and CR 595), and those have articles. You're dealing with a county-level roadway here with a system article (Forest Highway) that hasn't developed the level of notability that warrants a full systematic approach to coverage to its components. The scrutiny on county road and city street articles is very specific, and this article hasn't met it yet. Imzadi 1979 → 06:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since I know that this is a battle that I can not win, I am going to remove the GA nomination tag and request that I move this article to my user page, so that the information is still available for when I finally get around to creating List of Forest Highways in Alaska. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 00:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just stumbled across this because I noticed you used an image I created on it. I am afraid I must agree with what others have said above, this is a very short road, whose primary purpose is access to a campground. It is actually quite narrow and not built to highway standards. In fact I am fairly certain there are not even lane markings or other striping. There is also no such place as "central Primrose". The CDP is most likely actually named after the "Primrose trail" whose trailhead is at the back of the campground, it is not a town or village in any meaningful way. There are maybe seven or eight homes strung out along the length of the road before it dead ends at the campground, which only has about ten campsites. It's just not a big deal. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]