540:. As several people before me have said, comprehensive coverage of state highway systems is an important part of Knowledge's function as a gazetteer, and that includes covering minor and short-lived highways. I also don't see an issue with using maps as sources; unlike, say, satellite imagery, maps are curated and choose which roads and places to include and to highlight as more or less significant, and part of the reason that we treat state and federal highways as notable is that maps treat them as more significant. That being said, for roads like this where there's not a lot to say about them, I don't know that we have to cover them in their own article. I like the idea of creating a
969:, and the map is a faithful representation of that data, or of reality; if doesn't contain original thought. That still makes it a primary source, just like an aerial photo. Per WP:PSTS: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." None of that is found in maps, at least not enough to base an article on. Nothing in the essay you cite changes this.
417:, Knowledge also functions as a gazetteer, and gazetteers cover roads. Deleting this article would open a hole in Knowledge's coverage of the State Trunkline Highway System in Michigan. Now the nominator takes issue with the fact that the sources for the article are maps. There are over 10,000 American highway articles on Knowledge, most of which use maps as sources. A significant number of those articles are Featured or Good. Unless we are going to revisit the existence of those thousands of articles, I see no reason to delete this one.
1144:- Having a page for a stretch of highway that was less than half a mile long, and existed for less than two years, over 80 years ago, does not provide value to anyone. There aren't even any references for the years that it was active! The second version of the M-144, which existed for 33 years, doesn't have its own page but is redirected to the M-18. If there is a page about the physical stretch of road as it exists today, this should be merged into it. Otherwise it should simply be deleted.
694:
there, but not the actual purpose of contructing or designating this stretch of road! The sources, being only maps, do not give any history other than the inferrence that it was numbered "by 1937" and de-numbered "in 1939" because of differences in maps published at certain dates. However, the very title of this article is unverified because the
817:, but in reality anyone watching this page could help: In 1931, the McNitt Act required counties to set up county highway commissions and take over 20% of all township roads in the county; that took place from 1931 through 1937. The 1951 McNitt Act act transferred the rest of township roads to the county level.
792:
in an effort to squeeze some actual prose out of the maps cited, e.g. "The highway was decommissioned in 1939" is sourced to two 1939 maps, and I assume the road isn't listed in them, but this doesn't actually support the statement in the article without inference from the editor. If we have to stoop
693:
about this beyond its route on the map, hence it is not notable. The article says "The first incarnation of M-144 was designated by 1937 to serve as the connector to the state police headquarters" but this has no basis in the source whatsoever – we may have known that the state police HQ was located
560:
that had a particular name for a mere two years. What an embarassment. Even if this were still a highway today it's not notable. It's absolutely appalling that anyone would consider nothing but the Rand McNally atlas sufficient for notability, and if there are countless articles like this, yes they
787:
that article subjects must have at least one reliable independent source. Essentially all the sources cited are created or published by the
Michigan State Highway Department, which maintained the highway, and arguably aren't independent. The author also seems to have steered uncomfortably close to
591:
notable. Please re-read the notability standards for numbered highways before opining on them further. Also your claiming that others are saying "anything that appears on a map is automatically notable" is a very disingious case of putting words in other editors' mouths that are not
728:. After reconsidering the issue, reading the arguments above, and also considering potential precedent-setting, I'm convinced by Dough4872 and TheCatalyst31 that, while I would not shed tears if it were redirected-without-prejudice, this should be kept independently. -
1061:
I don't think anybody has argued that just because it's on a map, it's notable - in fact, that is why most city streets get deleted off
English Knowledge. But the notability of the state highway system is not disputed, and this article describes a portion of it.
760:
This guideline specifically excludes maps and tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject. Still, they do contribute to the satisfaction of the requirement of
656:
This guideline specifically excludes maps and tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject. Still, they do contribute to the satisfaction of the requirement of
616:
before opining further. You are implying that because state government of
Michigan built this road and it appears on maps, it's automatically notable – screw significant coverage! Screw the concept of notability and the GNG! Maybe Michigan needs a list in
203:
1047:. So I think there's a really good argument that if we can't source this thing to non-map sources, it can't meet the notability requirements. I have not seen a single sentence of prose written about this subject in reliable sources.
618:
569:
mean that anything that appears on a map is automatically notable, and this article is a massive violation of of guidelines that expect a modicum of significant coverage, and the keep votes have no basis in policy whatsoever.
278:
gives notability to these things, I don't think this one is notable. Given that this is liable to be a controversial nomination, given the GA status and all, let's please keep this civil and avoid any kneejerk !votes.
446:) - the state highway system is notable and this discusses a component of it. But due to the size of the article I could see it being merged somewhere else (as I would probably have done if I was the author). --
688:
facts about this road! Did the state department of transportation built it? Did they pay for the county or city to build it? Or did they just decide to make it part of the system with a number later? We know
662:
Indeed, most roads in the United States are built by the county or cities, and 99% of those are not considered notable. If the state has built it, it is worth at least a mention somewhere, if not more.
940:
56:. Consensus has tended towards deletion after relisting; however the arguments that redirecting would be a suitable compromise were not explicitly refuted, so I am going with that as a compromise.
197:
466:
per The
Bushranger. I concur with everything he says above. I believe there is only so much you can say about a highway of this length that was only around for two years. Would an entry on
137:
132:
256:
This guideline specifically excludes maps and tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject.
141:
124:
986:
And again, this does not reflect what maps are made. A cartographer has to decide what elements to include or exclude from a map, and how to label them. That is original thought. --
892:- as per Imzadi and TheCatalyst31. I also note that there is a discussion going on at the article's talk page regarding it's GA status, which never devolves into its notability.
316:
376:(i.e. in this context, County) roads require secondary sources - all federal and state numbered routes are notable because, and only because, they are federal and state routes.
698:
does show M-144, so having a title starting in 1937 seems to be inaccurate because it was on the 1936 map and there is no earlier map – or written source – that lacks the 144.
164:
919:, part of WP:NOR, directs: "Knowledge articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources."
1183:
Not notable, very ephemeral at best. This looks to me like a way to have state highway funds build a road from the state police building to a southbound interchange.
296:
443:
336:
744:
So something is notable despite not having a single sentence of prose in secondary sources presented? This warrants a list entry but not a standalone article.
1080:
838:
467:
387:
53:
128:
111:
544:
for roads like this - there are a few other former
Michigan highway articles among the shortest GAs which might work better in a list like that as well.
96:
218:
1172:
185:
1030:
880:
848:
I just did about 10 minutes of research and came up with these questions that I think would fill in some of the perceived holes in this article. –
120:
72:
1192:
1175:
1153:
1134:
1093:
1074:
1056:
1034:
1012:
998:
981:
955:
931:
903:
884:
855:
803:
767:
753:
739:
710:
675:
649:
625:
607:
574:
548:
532:
489:
477:
458:
434:
405:
348:
328:
308:
288:
66:
512:
179:
175:
783:. This article is entirely sourced to map entries. I'm also not entirely sure that it even gets past the fundamental requirement in
1070:
994:
951:
671:
454:
64:
225:
390:(presumably with an anchor placed for a direct #M-144 piping) without prejudice to restoration if and when additional sources (
258:. While I was involved with the GAR, I conducted a search for coverage outside of the maps, and was only able to come up with
91:
84:
17:
695:
541:
504:
482:
Since The
Bushranger changed his !vote, I just wanted to say that I am maintaining my !vote to redirect without prejudice. –
779:
I'm happy with the idea of articles citing maps, but an article's notability should not be based solely on map entries per
1169:
250:, and I'm thinking this may be an exception. As brought up in the still-unresolved GAR, all of the sources are maps.
1026:
876:
191:
105:
101:
1003:
But you can't draw any conclusions from that except for "such and such road was on such and such map in such year".
1116:
1083:
also documents that the subject was part of the state highway system, we don't need a standalone article for that.
822:
At this point between 1931 and 1937, was MSHD itself maintaining highways or was it still devolved to the counties?
1209:
40:
1166:
733:
643:
601:
399:
638:(i.e. first- and second-level political subdivisions) that designation of a route = that route is notable. -
784:
831:
Would it stand to reason that M-144 was a township road promoted to the state highway system by the county?
702:
says "Most numbered roadways are acceptable if they can be described beyond the route itself." but when we
1149:
1020:
870:
699:
793:
that low just to write a few sentences then it isn't possible to write an acceptable standalone article.
1205:
659:" You cannot just pick and choose one part of this guideline to read, while completely ignoring another.
36:
1017:
Is that no different than saying "such and such writings was on such and such newspaper in such year"?
939:
certainly not, this doesn't reflect how maps are made. The GIS data is the primary source. Please see
1067:
991:
948:
668:
451:
425:
364:" (emphasis mine). A gazetteer includes lists of state roads. Also it is long-established rock-solid
62:
729:
639:
631:
597:
525:
395:
365:
211:
234:
Yes, I'm aware this is likely to be a controversial nomination, as the subject is a GA. And yes,
1130:
1052:
1043:
excludes maps from notability-generating coverage, and the essay on using maps linked above says
1008:
852:
749:
545:
511:
style article for former state highways in
Michigan with little to say about them similar to the
508:
486:
474:
344:
324:
304:
284:
1045:
The presence of an object on a map is not sufficient by itself to show notability of a subject.
1145:
635:
271:
235:
80:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1204:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
841:, there were quite a few highway transfers of jurisdiction, including M-144. What changed?
1188:
1165:
and not notable. It's kind of like how in WPTC, we don't have an article for
Phillippe. --
1064:
988:
966:
945:
828:
When did the Ingham County Road
Commission name their highways? All at once or in stages?
814:
665:
448:
420:
57:
360:
is "Knowledge combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs,
1040:
972:
922:
916:
780:
759:
655:
518:
251:
583:
misunderstanding of how road notability works on
Knowledge. The "particular name" was
1126:
1048:
1004:
912:
893:
849:
764:
745:
707:
622:
613:
571:
483:
471:
340:
320:
300:
280:
267:
263:
1086:
796:
789:
585:
designated as part of a second-level political subdivision's primary highway system
562:
414:
357:
259:
442:
Political rhetoric and conspiracy theories about maps and map sourcing aside (see
372:
of GEOROAD, which is contradicted by the next segment which establishes that only
158:
1044:
936:
834:
Do we have access to Ingham County Road Commission minutes from the era of M-144?
255:
247:
243:
239:
369:
1184:
470:
convey any less information than is given in this article? Right now, no. –
619:
Category:Lists of state highways in the United States shorter than one mile
630:
Yes, that is exactly what I'm outright stating - not "implying" - because
1162:
1200:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
941:
Knowledge:Using maps and similar sources in Knowledge articles
1119:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
825:
Were these 20% of township highways becoming state highways?
706:
have maps, we cannot "describe" anything beyond the route!
684:
because there are not significant sources establishing
154:
150:
146:
1039:
It's not enough to contribute to notability, though.
210:
1125:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
317:
list of Transportation-related deletion discussions
240:
state and provincial highways are typically notable
556:There is no basis for automatic notability for a
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1212:). No further edits should be made to this page.
763:" With no non-map sources, this is not notable.
335:Note: This discussion has been included in the
315:Note: This discussion has been included in the
295:Note: This discussion has been included in the
297:list of Geography-related deletion discussions
337:list of Michigan-related deletion discussions
224:
8:
1081:List of state trunkline highways in Michigan
839:List of state trunkline highways in Michigan
468:List of state trunkline highways in Michigan
388:List of state trunkline highways in Michigan
112:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
54:List of state trunkline highways in Michigan
915:, a core policy. Maps are primary sources.
444:Talk:M-144 (1937–1939 Michigan highway)/GA2
334:
314:
294:
911:An article based solely on maps violates
380:there is no reason this cannot become a
561:need to be revisited too. Knowledge "
542:List of former Michigan state highways
513:List of former Maryland state highways
505:List of former Michigan state highways
758:Except there's already a precedent: "
7:
394:additional sources) can be found. -
579:You've just demonstated you have a
785:Knowledge:Verifiability#Notability
563:combining features of...gazetteers
121:M-144 (1937–1939 Michigan highway)
73:M-144 (1937–1939 Michigan highway)
24:
97:Introduction to deletion process
368:that - despite the "typically"
266:. I'm not seeing any way that
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
270:is met, and I feel like since
1:
1193:23:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
1176:21:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
1154:20:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
1135:23:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
1094:21:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
1075:21:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
1057:17:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
1035:17:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
1013:17:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
999:17:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
982:10:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
956:18:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
932:15:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
904:03:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
885:17:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
856:22:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
804:19:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
768:04:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
754:02:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
740:01:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
711:04:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
676:01:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
654:Except it is consensus that "
650:01:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
626:01:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
608:05:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
596:what they said or implied. -
575:20:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
549:18:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
533:13:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
490:03:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
478:08:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
459:07:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
435:06:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
406:06:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
349:06:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
329:06:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
309:06:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
289:06:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
67:21:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
87:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1229:
682:we don't know who built it
636:federal and state highways
587:; any road today would be
558:0.388-mile stretch of road
621:for this ridiculousness.
1202:Please do not modify it.
937:Maps are primary sources
32:Please do not modify it.
1161:has nothing to do with
499:as separate article or
262:, which likely fails
85:Articles for deletion
1142:Delete or weak merge
909:Delete and redirect.
696:cited map dated 1936
515:family of articles.
246:is not the same as
867:per TheCatalyst31
254:explicitly states
1137:
1021:JackFromReedsburg
980:
930:
871:JackFromReedsburg
790:original research
351:
331:
311:
102:Guide to deletion
92:How to contribute
1220:
1124:
1122:
1120:
1089:
1046:
979:
977:
970:
938:
929:
927:
920:
900:
897:
799:
736:
646:
604:
530:
528:
523:
521:
433:
430:
423:
402:
257:
249:
245:
241:
229:
228:
214:
162:
144:
82:
34:
1228:
1227:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1210:deletion review
1138:
1115:
1113:
1087:
1055:
1011:
973:
971:
923:
921:
898:
895:
797:
752:
738:
734:
700:WP:ROADOUTCOMES
648:
644:
606:
602:
526:
524:
519:
517:
507:that can be a
429:
426:
421:
418:
404:
400:
347:
327:
307:
287:
171:
135:
119:
116:
79:
76:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1226:
1224:
1215:
1214:
1196:
1195:
1178:
1156:
1123:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1051:
1007:
961:
960:
959:
958:
906:
887:
861:
860:
859:
858:
843:
842:
835:
832:
829:
826:
823:
819:
818:
807:
806:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
761:verifiability.
748:
732:
730:The Bushranger
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
660:
657:verifiability.
642:
640:The Bushranger
632:it is consenus
600:
598:The Bushranger
551:
535:
494:
493:
492:
461:
437:
427:
408:
398:
396:The Bushranger
370:weasel wording
362:and gazetteers
353:
352:
343:
332:
323:
312:
303:
283:
232:
231:
168:
115:
114:
109:
99:
94:
77:
75:
70:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1225:
1213:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1198:
1197:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1179:
1177:
1174:
1171:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1157:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1140:
1139:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1121:
1118:
1095:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1082:
1079:The entry in
1078:
1077:
1076:
1073:
1072:
1069:
1066:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1042:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1002:
1001:
1000:
997:
996:
993:
990:
985:
984:
983:
978:
976:
968:
965:
964:
963:
962:
957:
954:
953:
950:
947:
942:
935:
934:
933:
928:
926:
918:
914:
910:
907:
905:
902:
901:
891:
888:
886:
882:
878:
874:
873:
872:
866:
863:
862:
857:
854:
851:
847:
846:
845:
844:
840:
837:According to
836:
833:
830:
827:
824:
821:
820:
816:
812:
809:
808:
805:
802:
801:
800:
791:
786:
782:
778:
775:
769:
766:
762:
757:
756:
755:
751:
747:
743:
742:
741:
737:
735:One ping only
731:
727:
724:
712:
709:
705:
701:
697:
692:
687:
683:
679:
678:
677:
674:
673:
670:
667:
661:
658:
653:
652:
651:
647:
645:One ping only
641:
637:
633:
629:
628:
627:
624:
620:
615:
611:
610:
609:
605:
603:One ping only
599:
595:
590:
586:
582:
578:
577:
576:
573:
568:
564:
559:
555:
552:
550:
547:
546:TheCatalyst31
543:
539:
538:Keep or merge
536:
534:
531:
529:
522:
514:
510:
506:
502:
498:
495:
491:
488:
485:
481:
480:
479:
476:
473:
469:
465:
462:
460:
457:
456:
453:
450:
445:
441:
438:
436:
432:
431:
424:
416:
412:
409:
407:
403:
401:One ping only
397:
393:
389:
385:
384:
379:
375:
371:
367:
363:
359:
355:
354:
350:
346:
342:
338:
333:
330:
326:
322:
318:
313:
310:
306:
302:
298:
293:
292:
291:
290:
286:
282:
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
253:
237:
227:
223:
220:
217:
213:
209:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
184:
181:
177:
174:
173:Find sources:
169:
166:
160:
156:
152:
148:
143:
139:
134:
130:
126:
122:
118:
117:
113:
110:
107:
103:
100:
98:
95:
93:
90:
89:
88:
86:
81:
74:
71:
69:
68:
65:
63:
61:
60:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1201:
1199:
1180:
1158:
1146:TimeEngineer
1141:
1114:
1085:
1084:
1063:
1019:
1018:
987:
974:
944:
924:
908:
894:
889:
869:
868:
864:
810:
795:
794:
776:
725:
703:
690:
685:
681:
664:
612:Please read
593:
588:
584:
580:
566:
557:
553:
537:
516:
500:
496:
463:
447:
439:
419:
410:
391:
382:
381:
377:
373:
361:
358:Five Pillars
275:
242:. However,
233:
221:
215:
207:
200:
194:
188:
182:
172:
78:
58:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1181:Weak Delete
509:WP:USRD/RCS
422:Imzadi 1979
386:for now to
356:One of the
198:free images
975:Sandstein
967:Rschen7754
925:Sandstein
815:Imzadi1979
589:absolutely
272:WP:GEOROAD
236:WP:GEOROAD
59:Ritchie333
1206:talk page
1167:Hurricane
811:Questions
503:to a new
440:Weak keep
378:That said
374:secondary
366:consensus
276:typically
244:typically
238:does say
37:talk page
1208:or in a
1127:Missvain
1117:Relisted
1049:Hog Farm
1031:contribs
1005:Hog Farm
881:contribs
850:Fredddie
777:Redirect
765:Reywas92
746:Hog Farm
708:Reywas92
623:Reywas92
594:remotely
581:complete
572:Reywas92
554:Redirect
484:Fredddie
472:Fredddie
464:Redirect
383:redirect
341:Hog Farm
321:Hog Farm
301:Hog Farm
281:Hog Farm
165:View log
106:glossary
50:redirect
39:or in a
1170:Tracker
1088:Hut 8.5
1041:WP:NGEO
917:WP:PSTS
798:Hut 8.5
781:WP:NGEO
691:nothing
680:Except
565:" does
252:WP:NGEO
204:WP refs
192:scholar
138:protect
133:history
83:New to
1159:Delete
913:WP:NOR
614:WP:GNG
268:WP:GNG
264:WP:SPS
248:always
176:Google
142:delete
1185:Cxbrx
1053:Bacon
1009:Bacon
750:Bacon
520:Dough
501:Merge
415:WP:5P
413:—per
345:Bacon
325:Bacon
305:Bacon
285:Bacon
274:only
219:JSTOR
180:books
159:views
151:watch
147:links
16:<
1189:talk
1163:M-18
1150:talk
1131:talk
1071:7754
1068:chen
1027:talk
995:7754
992:chen
952:7754
949:chen
943:. --
899:5969
896:Onel
890:Keep
877:talk
865:keep
813:for
726:Keep
704:only
672:7754
669:chen
634:for
527:4872
497:Keep
455:7754
452:chen
411:Keep
260:this
212:FENS
186:news
155:logs
129:talk
125:edit
1173:495
686:any
567:not
392:any
226:TWL
163:– (
52:to
1191:)
1152:)
1133:)
1065:Rs
1062:--
1033:)
1029:|
989:Rs
946:Rs
883:)
879:|
666:Rs
663:--
449:Rs
339:.
319:.
299:.
206:)
157:|
153:|
149:|
145:|
140:|
136:|
131:|
127:|
1187:(
1148:(
1129:(
1025:(
875:(
853:™
487:™
475:™
428:→
230:)
222:·
216:·
208:·
201:·
195:·
189:·
183:·
178:(
170:(
167:)
161:)
123:(
108:)
104:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.