Talk:County Road 509 (Brevard County, Florida)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the County Road 509 (Brevard County, Florida) redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 January 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was redirect to List of county roads in Brevard County, Florida.

U.S. Roads: County roads / Florida

	U.S. roads portal This redirect is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles
Topics	U.S. county roads
Locations	Florida

Florida

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida articles

Deletion request

Keep, recommend keeping this article. I believe this article has potential for expansion. FieldMarine (talk) 06:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't exactly the place to vote for keeping this article. If this article has potential for expansion, please do so. This edit from February 2007 is the last edit to add a substantial amount of content, infobox notwithstanding. –Fredddie ™ 07:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And even if expanded, that doesn't mean it meets the General Notability Guideline and warrants inclusion in the encyclopedia. Of course there is nothing stopping someone from sending this article to AfD where the discussion could be to delete. Imzadi 1979 → 07:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - the template on the article directed me here to place a comment, which I did. FieldMarine (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

As for the credibility of the online source on Joe Wickham, I had the same concern because of the use of a Wikipedia as one of the four references cited in the bibliography. However, I decided to use it because after reading the Joseph H. Wickham article in wikipedia, there was no mention of the information about Wickham Road as used for this article. Thus, I figured the information came from one of the other four sources used to write the online article in question. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, but I think the source still fails WP:RS. You should be able to find some better source to replace it, because even if the specific page on that website is referencing information that's not in the WP article, you'd need to compare all revisions of the WP article to make sure it never contained that information. Additionally, the website doesn't appear to have an editorial oversight, nor a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I would suggest that a replacement reference from a better source be found to get away from any problems with this source. Imzadi 1979 → 23:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Points of interest section

I have included a section on points of interest. An editor had reverted the section & I put it back in place. IMHO, the consolidated bullets improves the article. Please comments so we can gain consensus. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That type of section has been deprecated by the overall project. Such a section, as a list, is a subjective exercise in what to include. However, if the landmarks are included into a proper route description, which is a prose section that follows the progression of a road from its southern or western terminus to its northern or eastern terminus, then the landmarks are integrated into a project-standard section. I commented out the section, not to remove the content completely, but to remove this subjective section so that the content is still preserved for conversion into a RD section. Please read WP:USRD/STDS for the standards on US state highway and county road articles. Imzadi 1979 → 23:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point about consistency across article types, but, IMHO, I believe the points of interest section adds value to the article & I don’t see how it goes against the Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Standards. If anything, I believe it to supplement that structure & I don’t see how it is subjective if the points are already listed in Wikipedia. However, we can also include a section on the talk page with dialogue for others to comment on about the points on the list in case someone feels an item should/should not be included on the list. IMHO, gaining consensus in this manner will decrease subjectivity.
Please add here how you would include the landmark section so we can take a close look at both approaches & provide an opportunity for others to comment as well. Semper Fi, FieldMarine (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

M-35 (Michigan highway) had a "points of interest" section in it once upon a time. As the article was expanded and improved, all of the items in the bulleted list were incorporated into the prose of the route description section. We should all be following the best practices that have been honed through 32 successful Featured Article Candidates that have been nominated by the USRD project and promoted by the community. Imzadi 1979 → 01:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]