Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstate 726

:{{la|Interstate 726}} ([{{fullurl:Interstate 726|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstate 726}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

:({{findsources|Interstate 726}})

Speculation; also a user dumped an entire report in here. Rschen7754 (T C) 03:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

:*Weak Keep- if the speculation can be taken out of the article, I think this article can be kept; otherwise delete this article.keystoneridin! (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete- I tried to find articles to make this better, but I alone cannot do it. I think the best course of action is to delete this article.keystoneridin! (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• That doesn't help the closing administrator at all. You can help the closing administrator by looking to see whether and how content and deletion policies apply in this case. Equivocation won't help. Uncle G (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interstate_726&diff=next&oldid=310087640 This edit], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interstate_726&diff=next&oldid=310090686 this edit], and indeed this very discussion page's own talk page (q.v.) confirm that {{user|Tstarl0425}} is the "Travis Starling" who authored the report that purportedly confirms this subject's existence and who created and published the WWW site that is the only other source cited. So what we have here is a person citing xyr own unpublished report, and xyr own WWW site, with no means for identifying the author or checking xyr reputation for fact checking and accuracy, as the sole sources of information on a subject. That falls entirely foul of our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies and guidelines on Wikipedia:Reliable sources. That you can make use of free WWW hosting at Google Sites doesn't make your writings trustworthy, M. Starling. Get your ideas published properly. If you truly are producing report for a DOT, you'll know what that entails. Wikipedia is not a free WWW hosting service nor a publisher of first instance. Uncle G (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This sounds like a hoax. Google comes up with zero hits outside of this article.Dave (talk) 05:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Also, searching South Carolina Department of Transportation yields zip [http://www.scdot.org/search/searchresults.asp?keyword=I-726&submit.x=0&submit.y=0] searching AASHTO yields zip [http://www.transportation.org/Default.aspx?c=search] and the Federal Highway Administration yields zip [http://search.fhwa.dot.gov/search?q=I-726&btnG=Search&ie=&site=fhwa_web&output=xml_no_dtd&client=fhwa_web&lr=&proxystylesheet=fhwa_web&oe=] I don't even know where else to look.Dave (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - almost certainly a hoax or the equivalent proposal made up one day. --NE2 05:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oh, and reopen Saluda Grade. (Does that work? I don't think so.) --NE2 05:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, per Uncle G. I've looked at Interstate/US highway corridor studies before, none with fewer than 100 pages and none with the scant amount of detail that the copy-pasted one in this article has. In addition, corridor studies are an early step in planning the general route of a highway, and would not have specific mileage or exits/interchanges fleshed out as the general alignment would not yet be in place. If there were a corridor study going on for a proposed Interstate highway, there would be information about the project available from the DOT(s) involved, newspaper stories about the proposal, and public hearings to discuss the results of the study and possible alignments. No such information or news came up in my simple Google search...the only positive hit was this article. --LJ (talk) 07:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete unless major, external references can be provided. And please, even if the final consensus goes for a keep (which I doubt but still), remove all the speculation and the author's study paper at the bottom. McMarcoP (talk) 10:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikpedia is not a crystal ball. If this proposal reaches a stage where it's been discussed widely, there will be independent sources to confirm that fact. ReverendWayne (talk) 13:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Almost certain this is a hoax & WP:CRYSTAL. Admrboltz (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Appears to be one person's informal proposal for an Interstate Highway. Unless something REALLY comes out of it, then this article has no right to exist. Dough4872 (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and a little WP:OR. Also note that I removed the study paper section of the article per WP:NOT. youngamerican (wtf?) 18:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete I'm not sure how often this happens, but, I have read the discussion and realise that without a doubt this is not at Wikipedia Standards. This Interstate is still in the proposal process. However, once this Interstate is approved, enough relible sources are out there, and the article can be made up to Wikipedia Standards, I will re-create the article. Thank you for your time in helping to make, what should one day be the article, a better one. I can also assure everyone that this is in no way a "hoax" of any kind. Travis (Talk) 12:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Please read WP:COI: even if this is not a hoax and you really are the project manager, you are definitely not the person to create the page. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

: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.