Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norwich Northern Distributor Road

: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 no consensus. Appropriate references available. People in Norwich apparently care a lot. Building delays merely add a new section to the article. (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 20:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

=[[Norwich Northern Distributor Road]]=

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

Original author promised to expand this article shortly after creation, this has never happened. According to one of the sources the earliest construction could start is 2012, which would limit the amount of information available on the project to make it notable. Given the uncertainty in UK road building at the moment, I feel WP:CRYSTAL should be applied here. jenuk1985 (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

  • WP:CRYSTAL would apply if there were no sources containing discussions of future events. But, in fact, in the cases of major road building programmes, there are usually a lot of sources, several years in advance, not least because of requirements for public consultation and suchlike that governments usually have. [http://www.norwich.gov.uk/intranet_docs/corporate/public/committee/reports/2005/norwich%20highways%20agency/REP_Norwich_Highways_Agency_Northern_Distributor_Road_2005_03_03.pdf This] [http://www.norwich.gov.uk/intranet_docs/corporate/public/committee/reports/REP%20Norwich%20Highways%20Agency%20Northern%20Distributor%20Road%202004-10-21%20.pdf particular] [http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/consumption/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&nodeId=3683 road] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/4289109.stm is] [http://www.roadtransport.com/Articles/2008/04/24/130552/norwich-says-no-to-congestion-charge.html no] [http://www.businessweekly.co.uk/2008080132316/infrastructure/norfolk-councils-propose-more-sustainable-alternative-to-coltishall-eco-town.html exception] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/7354375.stm to] [http://www.contractjournal.com/Articles/2009/01/27/64262/norwich-bypass-faces-11m-two-year-delay.html that]. As can be seen, there are plenty of in-depth sources, discussing this subject in depth, dealing in aspects ranging from from the motivations for construction to the delays in doing so. Google Books even leads to sources, such as an archaeological report by Norfolk Archaeology. The PNC is amply satisfied. Far more than what is currently written here can clearly be written.

    I urge Jenuk1985 to stop making personal speculations. You're not here to guess, based upon your own ideas, that a road won't be built, and write accordingly. Wikipedia:No original research, remember? You're not here to put your own guesses, ideas, and speculations anywhere into Wikpiedia. You're here to systematize existing, published, documented, human knowledge. And there is plenty of published documented knowledge of this subject to be had. Pick up the sources and start writing!

    Keep. Uncle G (talk) 11:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

::I have not read thru the soucres provided but your comment suggests they are not appropriate sources. The need for public consultaion and government sources involved in projects are not independant. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

:::A few of the sources are government websites, but others appear to be the independent sources needed. —Snigbrook 01:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep WP:CRYSTAL does not appear to apply: "If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented". Although it is not under construction already, according to the sources some of the planning for the road has started, and there is enough coverage for an article to be written about it. —Snigbrook 01:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm amazed that a road scheme is even being considered as notable enough to have its own article, no other UK road schemes warrant their own article, despite similar sources to those listed being available. jenuk1985 (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • A few road schemes have their own articles – there is a category, for articles or sections of articles about future roads. The category contains a few articles about proposed roads in the UK: Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route, Glasgow East End Regeneration Route, Longdendale Bypass and New M4; there may be others not in the category. Of the roads I have mentioned, all appear to meet the notability guidelines, with the possible exception of the Glasgow road. —Snigbrook 14:24, 4 February 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.