- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result waskeep. (non-admin closure)DavidLeighEllis (talk)00:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Anniston Eastern Bypass (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) – (View log ·Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL)
Expired PROD from 2008 (!) that was de-PRODded and not deleted. Concern then was "Unreferenced, non-notable transportation project" and that is still the case. –Fredddie™23:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently this article was undeleted by request atWP:REFUND#Anniston_Eastern_Bypass. Nevertheless, the notability concerns still apply. –Fredddie™00:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in thelist of Alabama-related deletion discussions.• Gene93k (talk)02:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in thelist of Transportation-related deletion discussions.• Gene93k (talk)02:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This appears to be an important road that is being built by the Alabama Department of Transportation as State Route 192; it is also receiving stimulus funding from the ARRA which shows importance. (seehere on page 36). The article does need a lot of improvement though.Dough487202:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Subject is likely notable perWP:NGEOG, but the lack of RS sources means it failsWP:V. Also this article is so dated that as it stands it may no longer be factually accurate. It needs to be updated with reliable sources or it needs to go away. I have added the page to my watch list. If appropriate improvements are made I will be happy to change my vote. -Ad Orientem (talk)03:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Changing my !vote to reflect added sources. Article is still in serious need of updating though. -Ad Orientem (talk)22:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's a major road project that's had a fair amount of news coverage (e.g.[1]). If in the future it becomes part ofUS-431 it can be merged to that article. --NE210:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—NE2 had thisWP:REFUNDed, which is fine. However, when an older article like this is REFUNDed, it should be brought up to date as expeditiously as possible. If it's not going to be updated, the article will still have the same issues regarding lack of sources and borderline notability (as written the article doesn't demonstrate the notability of the roadway, even if it is notable). I'm inclined to keep this, but the article needs to be updated and cleaned up yesterday.Imzadi 1979 →21:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. While some updating is still needed, I've fully referenced the article: notability is established. -The BushrangerOne ping only22:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
