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 keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (banter) @ 20:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

E04 expressway (Sri Lanka)[edit]

E04 expressway (Sri Lanka) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No references in the article and no evidence of notability for the subject. MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative keep: Numbered roads are usually notable, although I'm going by WP:ROADOUTCOMES which only lists those in the west. From what I've read, unsourced articles should be improved if possible rather than automatically deleted. Sources could probably be found for this road; the project exists as a firm proposal and construction is under way, so it's not just WP:CRYSTAL. The Sri Lankan Ministry of Highways, Ports and Shipping confirms the project exists at least, and government sources are generally treated as reliable. That at least should be in the article as a start to sources (and in fact there are four other sources which I've placed on the talk page --- I'm on my way to bed but someone can fit them in and use them to expand the article). (Having seen those, I've struck the tentative.) LouiseS1979 (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a major expressway project, if not the largest to date in Sri lanka http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=Work_on_Colombo_Kandy_leg_of_Northern_Expressway_20140831_01, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2014-03/05/c_133163825.htm. The article's references are all wrong, including some of the information in the info box which needs to be corrected, nonetheless the article should be kept given its importance.----Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 22:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are references that the highway is planned. I couldn't find any that construction has started or most of the details in the article. Some of the article's information is contradictory. As a planned major expressway, with references, it should stay. If any info is added, there must be refs. Bgwhite (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See Interstate 11 as precedent of an article about a major highway that has not yet been designated/built/planned. This is what the article looked like when nominated at AFD. –Fredddie™ 05:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know that we're WP:NOT a crystal ball, but there are reliable sources for this one. --Rschen7754 06:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a significant piece of state infrastructure, for which considerable planning and design has been completed, all of which can be verified. From the sources it is clear the the government is committed to its construction and that the project is likely to commence in 2015. Dan arndt (talk) 08:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced: Still say Delete I posted this proposal and in spite of all the comments above I'm not convinced. The notability criteria for a road are clear Wikipedia:Notability_(Transportation)#Streets.2C_roads.2C_and_highways From that section: "Every street, road, and highway is shown in some atlas or detailed street map somewhere. Therefore, inclusion in such a directory does not constitute notability. A street, road, or highway is notable if it is covered by one or more or featured in two or more reliable sources from outside the immediate area where it is found." My bolding. So there is a simple question: where are the 1-2 "reliable sources from outside the immediate area where it is found". If they don't exist yet then this topic isn't notable. Period. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, that is not an official page, and secondly, even if that was true, what about the source from China mentioned above? --Rschen7754 14:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to expand: it's a failed proposal and marked as historical. LouiseS1979 (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think its fair to say a consensus has been established in favor of keeping the article, how do we close this deletion proposal? ----Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 11:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Eng.M.Bandara: - We need to wait for an uninvolved admin or user to decide on that and close. Participants in the discussion aren't meant to make the final decision to close an AfD (see about non-admin closures). LouiseS1979 (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – This is a major infrastructure project, and we have multiple WP:RS that construction work is imminent or has already started. – Margin1522 (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2014 (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.