Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arizona Freeway and Expressway System

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 delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona Freeway and Expressway System

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

Apparently copied from/inspired by California's similar system. This is likely a hoax, as such a legally designated system doesn't exist in Arizona. -happy 5214 23:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not copied from California Freeway and Expressway System. All States have similar Highway Systems. All Highways in this page exist unless otherwise described as (Former). Also Note the source is an official Arizona State Document describing the System, its roads and plans. LuckyLag360 (talk) 01:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but the California freeway/expressway system is a subset of the full California highway system that is legally defined as a separate subsystem. No one's disputing that Arizona has a state highway system—it is described at List of state routes in Arizona—but Arizona doesn't appear to have defined particular segments of routes as expressways. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

*~~Speedy Delete~~—this article is either a hoax or a very misinformed effort. At the minimum, this article directly copies text from the California article, but omits references to the specific sections of the legal code and then does a "find all, change all" type of edit to switch every reference to California to Arizona, including linking to the non-existent Portal:Arizona Roads where the original has a link to Portal:California Roads. Also, California has a Streets and Highways Code in their legal statutes, and it defines a specific system of freeways and expressways. Arizona does not legislatively define things like that, nor do they specifically define a system of freeways and expressways. The source proffered above applies to the overall state highway system and does not define an entity in the state of Arizona called the "Freeway and Expressway System". Also at a minimum, this is an inappropriate copy of text from one article to another without proper attribution. Imzadi 1979 → 02:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is neither as I've explained in the other talk pages you claim it is Hoax yet I have disproved this accusation over and over again. If you claim it is a misinformed effort how is it misinformed? What makes it misinformed? And as I've explained before I did not copy anything from the “California Article”. Just because an article looks similar does not mean it is a copy.
Yes California State Law has a Streets and Highways Code in there Legal Statute. Arizona has there Streets and Highways Code in title 28 which is referenced and feel free to read it. The State of Arizona defines and in there state wide transportation plan (which is in title 28) “Highways” ”Freeways” and “Expressways” under there State Route System and Interstate System that runs throughout the State. If you claim that the title of an article has to be an official name defined by state law I'd like to see that in the wikipedia rules. The demand you seem to be making is that the title of the article needs to be changed. Nothing within the article is wrong. The only compliant you make is “Arizona Freeway and Expressway System”. Which Arizona has a Freeway and Expressway system. Whether the state specifically defines it as that or not. You cannot deny Arizona has Freeways and Expressways and that it is under the State Route System and Interstate System. If it cannot be “Arizona Freeway and Expressway System” than what should it be? Wouldnt a simple rename be appropriate, not a take down? I guess it could be Arizona State Route Transportation System? What name do you deem appropriate? LuckyLag360 (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a very simple matter. Arizona has freeways and expressways that are a part of the official state highway system, and we do not deny that. However, that does not mean there is a "Freeway and Expressway System".
  The California Legislature has a separate set of state laws called the Streets and Highways Code, and it is separate from the other 28 California Codes. The legislature in the Grand Canyon State has codified all of their laws into a single code called the Arizona Revised Statutes, and Title 28 is just one part of it, but it is not a "Streets and Highways Code" by name.
  Title 28 does not create a separate entity called the "Freeway and Expressway System". The S&HC in California does though. So even though Arizona has freeways and expressways, it does not have a Freeway and Expressway System. Because one doesn't exist, we should not have an article on it. We can cover the concept that some of the various highways are freeway- or expressway-grade within a larger article on the system, just as has been done at Michigan State Trunkline Highway System.
  Lastly, your insistence that you didn't copy California Freeway and Expressway System to create this article rings very hollow. As I demonstrated on the talk page, whole paragraphs match word for word except where you changed the name of the state and dropped "sections 250-257" from the text. The sooner you stop denying that the sooner people might take your other comments more seriously. Imzadi 1979 → 07:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. There is a "Arizona freeway and expressway system" (as part of the state highway system), but there is no "Arizona Freeway and Expressway System" (a legally defined entity). --Rs chen 7754 06:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good I'm glad you admit that. As Rschen7754 said there is a "Arizona freeway and expressway system" (as part of the state highway system), but there is no "Arizona Freeway and Expressway System" (a legally defined entity). I agree 100% with him. I never claimed there was legally defined Entity. It is simply the title as that is the best title to fit the article unless you can come up with something better? As I asked above what Page title would you deem appropriate? Because this one seems to make you think I am making some sort of Hoax.

You're the only one insisting I copied that wikipedia article. Whether you think I did or not is irrevelent as the page looks nothing like the one you say I copied and the information is accurate. If you feel information is not accurate edit it and fix any mistakes you find. Source it and move on. Dont claim I hoax an article and than try and get it deleted just because the title does not represent the States Legal Definitions.

Really I think you took my hole article out of context. Please go back and read it and if you feel somethings wrong with it edit it. Please give constructive criticism to specific parts and reword things if its not correct. Thats all I ask. LuckyLag360 (talk) 07:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of the six sentences of text in the original article, five matched the other article word for word; the sixth contain non-standard grammar and capitalization that matches your writing style on the talk pages, also giving away the fact that you did not write the majority of the text in the article. Continuing to deny those facts removes any credibility you may have. Frankly, a few sentences of text on the concept that some Arizona highways are built to freeway specifications (Title 28 does not have a definition for expressway in the state) can be included in List of state routes in Arizona, meaning there is no need to have a separate article on this topic at all, let alone one that implies there is a legally defined system of freeways and expressways in the state. Since Imzadi 1979 → 08:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again whether you believe I copied it is irreverent given its a separate article, with its own content and its own sources. At this point I could care less what you think I did or didnt do. If you read carefully in the article it clearly states The Arizona Freeway and Expressway System (as part of the state highway system). It clearly states it is a part of the State Highway System not its own legally defined system as "Freeway and Expressway". The article you claim makes this irreverent only covers state highways. It lacks information on Interstates and Other Expressways, Parkways, Loops and anything else that qualifies as a Freeway or Expressway under such definition. Again there is no implication or intent to make a reader think that this is a separate system. Therefore it is not a hoax.LuckyLag360 (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By submitting this article, you are implying that this Arizona Freeway and Expressway System is a notable concept. It is not. It is no more notable than an article called Arizona State Highways That Go Through Cities Of More Than 1,000 People. --Rs chen 7754 13:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—this article started as a nearly word-for-word duplicate of the wrong template, California Freeway and Expressway System. Since the creator now admits that such a legally defined system does not exist in Arizona, at best the capitalization on the current title is wrong. Once we scrub the text that implies a coordinated system from the article, we're down to an article that acts only to list the freeways in a state. As a topic, that's not something rises to the level of notability for a separate article.
No matter what, we should create Category:Freeways in Arizona as a subcategory of Category:Freeways in the United States and tag all of the non-Interstate Highway articles with that category. Then we can put Category:Interstate Highways in Arizona and Category:Freeways in the Phoenix metropolitan area in that category as the next level down. Voilà, all of the freeways in the state are listed together in the category tree. Imzadi 1979 → 08:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Same reasons above. Cards84664 (talk) 11:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Imzadi. Plus, I have doubts about the accuracy of the list (such as whether some of the roads listed would qualify as "expressway"). -- LJ ↗ 02:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:LISTCRUFT for a non-existing entity. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unneeded list. Categories better handle the need. Dough4872 14:14, 21 September 2016 (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.