Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/M-41 (Michigan highway)/1

M-41 (Michigan highway)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. Real4jyy (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Short GA with uncited sentences and Google Maps as a source, which is problematic. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GabrielPenn4223: please tell me which sentences are not cited. The entire route description is cited to the 1919 state map, the appropriate section of which is an illustration in the article. (I added a redundant citation to the current state highway map for good measure.) The entire history section is cited to its several citations. The lead is a summary of the body, thus it doesn't need citations. We might quibble over the last sentence of the lead, but if you would like me to cite every single official state highway map from 1926 to 2023 (yes, I have scanned copies from the Library of Michigan on my hard drive or print copies in notebooks for 1958 to 2023) for the proposition that a number has never been reused in almost a century, then I will. P.S., List of state trunkline highways in Michigan also has every iteration of every highway designation, and M-41 only appears once there.

As for Google Maps, it's only cited for the length of the highway, and that's a fairly common use case for that site for millions of people daily. There is no consensus on the reliability or unreliability of Google Maps generally per WP:GOOGLEMAPS, so we have to judge on a case-by-case basis. Suffice to say, they can get basic lengths correct. Imzadi 1979 → 09:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist and redirect to List of state highways in Michigan. There is no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The closest is a citation to the The Grand Rapids Press but that talks about highway classification generally, not specifically this topic. The discussion about Google Maps misses the point - of course it can be a reliable source, but it cannot be an independent authoritative one to demonstrate notability. User:Uncle G/On notability is my favourite essay that describes the difference between being reliably sourced and notable in an engaging way. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ritchie333, notability is irrelevant in a GAR discussion and discussions about Google Maps' reliability are very relevant; if you have an issue with the article's notability, please take it to AfD. I have taken the liberty of striking the "and redirect to" portion of your !vote, as it is not within GAR's purview. Best, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't want to AfD the article, because there is a non-deletion alternative per WP:ATD-R. But blanking and redirecting an existing GA might be considered disruptive. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Ritchie333, then the GAR discussion will happen, and if it is delisted you can blank and redirect without fear of being called disruptive. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Correct, and @Ritchie333, it is not disruptive to blank and redirect existing GAs It is not vandalism. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 11:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is fine. GAs are not required to be long. If there's some specific thing that isn't in the article, which needs to be added to it, then fine -- but we don't write long articles simply for the thrill of the keyboard. jp×g 🗯️ 12:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and redirect to List of state highways in Michigan. Another article that was wouldn't pass GA these days, but did over a decade ago. When an article is so short as to almost be a stub and still has multiple statements that are either unsourced or only sourced to maps, there simply isn't enough there for GA. Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist but keep FWIW, I believe a GAR (and delisting if necessary) is definitely the way to go, but I don't believe blanking and redirecting is necessary. There are a number of potential citations online and on Wikipedia Library that could be used to help expand the article, and seven citations is pretty decent compared to some stubs which are kept with only three. I don't edit highway articles, but I stumbled across this conversation and thought I'd give my two cents. Cheers! Johnson524 08:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do not decide on notability here. Take it to AfD if you think this fails GNG. We are looking for arguments on if this meets the GA criteria, and if not, can it be improved to meet them, or should it be delisted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Ritchie. Not every topic can have a good article on it; some topics just don't have sufficient coverage in reliable sources. This is one of them. BilledMammal (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Agreed that this topic is self-evidently too shallow to qualify for GA, and the weak sourcing confirms it. I would also support redirecting.

JoelleJay (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.