Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M58 (Cape Town)

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 redirect to Metropolitan Routes in Cape Town. Here a sock, there a sock. Everywhere a sock sock. That said, no consensus against a redirect in lieu of deletion and potential creation by an established editor. Star Mississippi 02:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

M58 (Cape Town)

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zero in-depth coverage of this road. Was redirected, but reverted without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969: I assume that you have done WP:BEFORE? --Rs chen 7754 15:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969: Piggybacking on Rschen7754's question, can you explain your process of WP:BEFORE when you evaluated this article? V C 16:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the course of doing research on several of such articles (i.e. M1 (Durban), M27 (Durban)) I have generally found that there are too many sources to simply redirect to a table. If there are concerns that such articles should be merged into a list (not just a table, but a more extended list with paragraphs for each route) that can be discussed outside AFD. --Rs chen 7754 07:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[1] looks to have some hits, but without buying the book it is hard to say. --Rs chen 7754 05:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would be okay with a soft redirect since the creator was a sock, and the issue of notability could be revisited at a later date. --Rs chen 7754 00:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to Numbered routes in South Africa (fails WP:GNG~~ MetricMaster (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.[reply]

Comment wrong proposed redirect target. Park3r (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will also point out that this is a very new editor, with most of their edits being today's string of AFD votes. --Rs chen 7754 00:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Rschen7754's comment. GeographicAccountant (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Metropolitan Routes in Cape Town or consensus target. Unnecessary fork that only makes readers chase links to access content. There is not reason to fragment this content. Just because an article might be notable, doesn't mean it must have an article. // Timothy :: talk 22:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You just admitted that the road is notable. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Timothy. The sources presented in the article and at this AfD are trivial passing mentions that shows it exists and nothing more. I couldn't find anything else obvious in a search. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect without prejudice against a well-developed article, per Timothy's reasoning. While the topic is notable, the current content does not offer sufficient added value for a keep. gidonb (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NOTCLEANUP If a topic is notable, then the current state of the article is not relevant. Park3r (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCLEANUP does not apply to premature spinoffs. It applies only to articles that need cleanup in some way or form. Someone else made a similar comment under Timothy's opinion. Totally irrelevant! gidonb (talk) 05:46, 6 April 2023 (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.