Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A508 road

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The question of whether the segment lengths constitute WP:OR or just WP:CALC is an editorial issue outside the scope of the AfD, and the entire section has been removed from the current version anyway. Owen× 21:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A508 road (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)

Article about an unremarkable 32-mile long road, full-to-the-brim with original research. No indication of why the road is notable. There few actual facts, just an article that only serves to say this road exists. It would be much better to delete the content and redirect it to be a table row in the article A roads in Zone 5 of the Great Britain numbering scheme 10mmsocket (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to clarify that the "distance section" of the page was added by using the "measure distance tool" on Google Maps. So when I added it 18 months ago, I did not try to breach Wikipedia's laws regarding copyvios. Roads4117 (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you are a roads surveyor with the appropriate tools, how can you measure distances down to an accuracy of 1 metre? It's pure original research. It's interesting to look at the Google Maps entry on WP:RSNP. It says there are instances where Google Maps is appropriate as a source - and in fact goes to say that adding coordinates to articles needn't always be referenced - but I think there's a difference between adding coordinates and calculating distances. The latter is very much original research. Are you measuring the distance between two points on the map, or the track that the road takes between the two points? Those are two very different distances if the road has bends. Are you measuring distance along the centre line of the road to average out the effect of left and right hand bends? There are so many things that an individual can do when calculating those numbers that makes them the very essence of original research. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@10mmsocket, could we then just make it correct to 2 decimal places? Then it is not as accurate. But in response to your other question, I measured it by the centre of the road, not as the crow flies. Also, if it did get removed, then how would you know how long the road is? Websites that have this kind of information are normally unreliable, so unless somebody else knows of a reliable website where you find this kind of information, then technically every article with the length section in the infobox should have it removed, as that would then be original reserach. Roads4117 (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be removed from every article where it is unreferenced, you are right - and of course that's why it has been removed from this article already. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@10mmsocket, but then what about the A1 article, where on Wikipedia, it says that the length of the road is 410 miles (660 km), on the SABRE roads website here[1], it says that the length of the road is 396 miles (637 km), but on this other website I found, it says that the road length is 490 miles (790 km) long.[2] And just for the record, the length of the road as the crow flies is approximately 331 miles (533 km). How do you then know which is correct, as none of them have citations? Would you then need to remove the length bit from the Wikipedia article, as it may be incorrect? Is the road length section breaching the original research rule on Wikipedia? Roads4117 (talk) 09:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think either of those sources is a reliable source? Wikipedia don't generally allow user generated content WP:UGC and Sabre clearly falls into that category as it's all created by enthusiasts. I'm surprised it's allowed on so many road articles. Perhaps that's a discussion for another day. The A1 is an interesting question. Are you talking about the A1 from central London to Edinburgh, or the A1 minus the sections designated A1(M)? That should be made clear. Any sources used in articles can and should be challenged if you believe they're incorrect. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@10mmsocket, yes I do agree those two sources that I gave as an example are unreliable, although saying that, then technically the Wikipedia one could also be classified as unreliable. I probably will raise it after the discussion here and back over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography has finished, as otherwise with three conversations going on at once, things can get lost in the conversation etc. I suppose it is allowed on so many road articles, as there are not that many reliable sources out there for this topic, which makes me wonder where all of this road length information came from in the first place: some website that does not exist anymore? SABRE? Google Maps measure distance tool? Either way, it probably does need to get sorted out soon. But going back to your other question, for all of the lengths that I gave above, I am talking about the A1 and A1(M) in full from what was the Museum of London, to Princes Street in central Edinburgh. But another thing just to quickly mention whilst I am here is that at this section here where it shows the different lengths of the A1 and A1(M) along the route, although it shows that the A1(M) is 145.38 miles (233.97 km) after doing a bit of calculating, it also says the A1 and A1(M) combined is 397 miles (639 km), once again a completely different length with no citations whatsoever. I think this whole length thing may be one to watch for the next few weeks. Roads4117 (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If obtained in that way, it is WP:OR and inadmissible. Wittgenstein and Wikipedia agree, Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent, or as we say, WP:V.
Also, see Accuracy and precision. NebY (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "A1". SABRE Roads. Retrieved 2024-08-20.
  2. ^ "A1 road". Freedom GPT. Retrieved 2024-08-20.
  • Keep but improve: The bypasses section has actual information which a reader might want ("We used to get delayed going through xyz, I wonder when they made this bypass?"). I've linked the settlement names in that section, and two of the three bypasses have sources. Agree that the table of distances is unnecessary and excessive. Is there nothing else to be said about the history of the road, I wonder? PamD 10:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, if the article is deleted, add the sourced info about bypasses to the "Notes" column of the Zone 5 list: "Bypasses constructed for Yardley Gobion (1987)(ref) ..." etc. That said, the ref for that bypass is somewhat iffy, and there's no date in the article! PamD 10:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense, although I would question the notability of three very short village bypasses. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PamD, there was a bit about railways, as you can see from this revision here but then it got removed during the mass removal by Steinsky on Saturday, August 17. To be honest, even to my standards, I thought that the amount of information provided was a bit over the top, but even if you removed the table and summarised the remainder of the section, it would still make the article a bit more interesting. Roads4117 (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. WCQuidditch 10:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve (like what @PamD said): I have been working on this article for quite a while now. I tried to write in a similar style of the A52 road article, but obviously failed. The things that still need to be added if this article is to survive are the following: finish off the route section, extend the history section, add more references. As this is my first article that I am writing (more or less from stratch), I probably do need some help from more experienced editors to help me write this article, so that I can write better articles in the future. Although, it has to be said, this article, although it does look half finished, looks better than what it looked like about 2 years ago. Furthermore, as Ajpolino said on my user talk page, I think it's clear the encyclopedia is better with those road articles intact, than with the redirects to a list that just shows "from", "to", and "notes"., and I totally agree; the reader is not learning anything by seeing some table that shows the road goes from London to Manchester etc. But in conclusion, I think that this article does definitely have potential to become an amazing article, it just currently needs a lick of paint and some TLC to actually get the article to the standard it deserves. Roads4117 (talk) 09:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is good discussion on its paving in Roads and Road Construction from 1928 and about its historical importance dating back to medieval times in a book on Naseby - more might be found in a different search, but I think there's enough information to pass WP:GNG, though the references in the article - I mean, Google Maps is no reference. SportingFlyer T·C 00:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @SportingFlyer, I hope that you are well and sorry for the late response. Can you please send me through those discussions on "Roads and Road Construction from 1928 and about its historical importance dating back to medieval times in a book on Naseby", as I can't find it anywhere. Also, what kind of references would you recommend other than Google Maps. The only reason why I used citations to Google Maps throughout the article, was because at WP:GOOGLEMAPS, it states that Google Maps and Google Street View may be useful for some purposes, including finding and verifying geographic coordinates and other basic information like street names. However, especially for objects like boundaries (of neighborhoods, allotments, etc.), where other reliable sources are available they should be preferred over Google Maps and Google Street View. It can also be difficult or impossible to determine the veracity of past citations, since Google Maps data is not publicly archived, and may be removed or replaced as soon as it is not current. Inferring information solely from Street View pictures may be considered original research., which is the reason why I used it - to verify basic information like road names, village names and distances between A and B, as well as confirming that this building or something exists. Regards, Roads4117 (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Roads4117: I simply did a Google books search, have a look there, sorry for not providing it but I'm about to head out. Your description of Google Maps unfortunately sounds like original research. SportingFlyer T·C 20:13, 25 August 2024 (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.