Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M1 (Durban)

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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There is an overwhelming consensus expressed for Keeping this article and the only editor supporting Delete was the nominator. I would have preferred more argumentation based in policy but I can't ignore the numbers here and those arguing Keep believe GNG is met. If this AFD is a sign of future deletion discussions on similar articles, please let there be fewer aspersions cast, especially against an entire WikiProject. If there is serious disagreement over how notability is assessed on the subject of roads, an RFC might be called for rather than arguing over differences of opinion at individual AFDs which can cause other editors to avoid participating in discussions. Liz Read! Talk! 04:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M1 (Durban)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

M1 (Durban) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Significant article that has single low info reference that fails WP:V and WP:AUD and WP:SIGCOV. Continual pushback by editors who write road articles and refuse to reference properly. Looking to get M41 (Durban) and M25 (Durban) redirected as well. Originally redirect as part of WP:NPP review by concerted effort to revert. scope_creepTalk 19:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a major freeway in the region and an important mode of transport. It is clear the nominator did not give time for sources to be found or even look for them, but I will try to do so later today. To get the other matters out of the way: Continual pushback by editors who write road articles and refuse to reference properly. is poisoning the well and inappropriate for this discussion. And WP:NPP is not a trump card that allows any sort of behavior to be excused. --Rschen7754 19:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Already I have found [1]. Also a lot of stories about highway deaths which might not have been notable otherwise, but combined with that story are relevant. --Rschen7754 19:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a procedural note, this AFD was mentioned here which is a violation of WP:CANVASS. --Rschen7754 19:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There has been a consistant and long term effort that was noticed in August as part of this years WP:NPP push, to bypass normal Wikipedia controls around correctly sourcing road articles, that is outside consensus. This articles was redirected by several page reviewers because it is incorrectly ref'd. It is essentially and copy-and-paste from the source site without proper citations that can verify the articles contents, per WP:V. I'm looking for a redirect. scope_creepTalk 20:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Unsourced accusations and anyway this is not the place for that. Also not sure how a map can be copy-pasted. --Rschen7754 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to ask the nominator how many articles from one editor triggers the "needs more than one reference" rule from the RFC on mass creation? According to the RFC, there is no set number that, so I'd like to know what the nominator's number is. –Fredddie™ 20:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Another source is [2]. There's no way a major project like this didn't receive coverage during planning and construction. Garuda3 (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW Keep—finding news coverage for events like this shootout or streetlight thefts or a petition to renamed the highway that would be covered as part of the post-opening history of the roadway. In short, it seems apparent that the nominator did not conduct a proper WP:BEFORE inquiry into this article ahead of the nomination. Imzadi 1979 → 21:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And just to follow on with my comments, those are just initial sources for those events. Once they're added to a History section, additional sources on the outcome of the shootout, the thefts and the petition will need to be added. There were also reports of problematic flooding on the highway. Sounds like this roadway has been the subject of significant coverage, and knee-jerk redirecting a new article may be a bad idea. Imzadi 1979 → 21:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NOT Snow keep. Those references are not specific to the road, just incidental coverage, or even why even they are there. What is needed is real WP:SECONDARY sources, not passing mentions. scope_creepTalk 21:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A petition to rename the roadway itself is "incidental coverage". Wow.
Theft of the street furniture along this roadway is "incidental coverage". Again, wow.
Continuing on, 2013 Pinetown crash happened at the corner of Richmond and Josiah Gumede roads. Richmond Road is another name for the M1 we're discussing. There's another historical event for the History section that should be added. There are news articles about other accidents at that intersection. As mentioned above, there is more to this story than the one link I posted.
And since Richmond Road dates back to at least 1883 (found mention of it in a report from the Colony of Natal on Google Books, there's probably quite a bit more history out there for someone to find if they spent more than the few minutes I have. Again, did you do a WP:BEFORE search of any kind before nominating this per the instructions? Imzadi 1979 → 21:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Something from 1883 is probably a bit better. Theft of the street furniture along this roadway is "incidental coverage" dude. scope_creepTalk 22:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sources to demonstrate notability clearly do exist and can be found. A proper search before was not conducted. SounderBruce 23:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - to Metropolitan Routes in Durban. Currently the article has a single footnote, which does not support the text which it is supposed to. Please see WP:OR and WP:MAPCITE. Of the 5 sources in "Further reading", 3 do not even mention the M1, including the article which supposedly is about a petition to rename the highway. Now, that article may indeed be about this road, but there is no sourcing which says that it is, as such, that is a clear piece of WP:SYNTH. The other 2 sources mention the freeway in passing, offering no in-depth coverage of this road. Onel5969 TT me 23:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • And that line of reasoning opens a can of worms. When a woman gets married, does that mean that we cannot use sources just because they refer to her maiden name? --Rschen7754 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, unless there is an independent source which verifies that they are the same person. Notice what I said, that there is no sourcing connecting the named road in the article, to the M1. And without that, it is SYNTH. That's most likely easily corrected, but a single sparse source still does not equate to notability. You may know that the married woman is the same as the single woman, but without sourcing, that is SYNTH, or WP:OR. Onel5969 TT me 02:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Good luck with that. --Rschen7754 03:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I will also point out that numerous sources do use the phrase "M1 Higginson Highway": [3], [4] Google search --Rschen7754 02:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Rschen7754 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Africa. Rschen7754 01:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an update - so far we are at 11 news articles, 1 book, 1 journal article, and possibly a lot more on Google Scholar and Google Books. This subject clearly meets GNG. --Rschen7754 02:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Route is an important road of regional significance and is covered in several sources as mentioned by others. Dough4872 02:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer. Most of the coverage on here is extremely poor and wouldn't pass muster in any other Afd type. It is should be redirected. scope_creepTalk 03:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume you have looked at the 13 sources added? --Rschen7754 03:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Feels like WP:WORLDVIEW is being disregarded. Also, WP:NOTCLEANUP, poor sourcing or article quality doesn't imply a lack of notability. Would we even be having this conversation if this was a major road in a metropolitan region with 3 million people in a first-world country? Park3r (talk) 10:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because even though a majority of editors are advocating Keeping this article, there are questions about the quality of sourcing. Looking at the article's sources, it seems that most of them concern a supposed ghost that haunts this road which doesn't seem like SIGCOV. This relist can allow sources that have been mentioned in this discussion to be evaluated. Of course, this discussion can be closed whenever an admin is satisfied that there is a policy-based consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I am a bit surprised by this relist rationale. It seems like this would be better expressed as a !vote than an a decision to relist. --Rschen7754 01:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my comment assessing the quality of the sources. I think the rest is neutral. I truly have no opinion about the fate of this article. Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that was the part that I found problematic. --Rschen7754 01:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a Roads-specific WP:SNG. Does one exist somewhere on the WikiProject? Liz Read! Talk! 21:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I got you fam Wikipedia:Notability (highways) and Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Notability I thought I gaslit myself because I knew I found a standard. Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of these are accepted guidelines...... Reywas92Talk 04:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This continous idea that the essay WP:WORLDVIEW, somehow applies here, completely ignoring the fact the article doesn't have a references, pushing themselves out the mainstream and again an indication that they are expecting a get-out clause when everybody else had moved on and expecting to reference the article. Its puzzles me why the roads folk didn't get message in 2007-2008 that was widely distributed, that for geographic features, single map references weren't capable of satisfying WP:V. I was told that applies to any geographic feature, like a mountain or a lake or a hill, yet for some reason the road editors didn't get that message, instead charging on like its 2005. It reminds me a quote by William of Ockham that states:
You are completely entitled to opinions that are not supported by evidence, but the moment you spread that opinion as fact, you are a liar, and if you spread it as fact knowing that it’s not supported by evidence, you are both a liar and a fraud. Don't worry. You will change. scope_creepTalk 21:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to assume good faith, because while you are pointing good things, it seems like the large consensus, with evidence is well against you. I mean I will compare it to US 22 (NJ). The big difference is the big American article has some pictures, templates, but functionally its a provincial road. Its why I am big on the WP:WORLDVIEW. It feels like the worst sort of systemic bias that this small suuth african road is AfD for reasons that I know US 22 in NJ would not be. Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No your not. A simple reading of the background on this article would have shown it was reviewed at WP:NPP and redirected as it was considered not sourced which was the consensus, shows your argument is a total crock. scope_creepTalk 06:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - Took me 30 seconds to find this article [5] which is a story about how the highway received it's name, a controversial tale involving the forced relocation of Indians out of certain Durban neighborhoods into Chatsworth. It seems to be there is indeed a lot more than can be said about this highway. Dave (talk) 07:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GEOROAD and WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:26, 7 December 2022 (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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/M1_(Durban)&oldid=1126216982"