Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M1 motorway junction list

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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

M1 motorway junction list

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

Totally pointless transclusion page. If people want a print they can print the template. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, template page and all. Entirely unnecessary, and there's a precedent against separate articles for junction lists. --Rs chen 7754 21:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

I personally have found it useful to print off junction lists for use in the car prior to making a journey which is why I created this article. I notice that User:Rschen7754 is American; it might be that strip maps are common place in the US, but I have never visitied the US, so I don't know, all that I do know is that they are not common in the UK.
I originally planned to design the template so that it could be printed, but I found that the procedure for printing a template is different to that for printing an article - templates can only be printed using the browser print facility, articles have the Wikipedia printing facilities as well as the browser facilites including PDF facilites.
If this proves popular, I see a potential to create books of junction lists.

The proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating. May I suggest that this be revisited in say two weeks time and see how many hits this article gets. If it is getting a significant number of hits, then maybe the precendent against separate articles for junction lists need to be revisited - the railway and canal group's maps are all created via templates.

If it gets hardly any hits, then I agree, the experiment failed and it can be deleted. Martinvl (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mainspace is the wrong place to conduct experiments. --Rs chen 7754 22:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention, page hits have no correlation with the usefulness to the user, nor infer the intentions of the user prior to arriving at that article and upping the ticker. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any page hits will be inflated because of the AfD as regular editors that follow AfD see this "article" linked and discussed at that forum. Imzadi 1979 → 00:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with previous editors on all counts:

How such an experiment be carried out other than in main space? The only other article that has been modified to accomodate this experiment is the Wikilink to this page in M1 motorway, the perturbation to the rest of Wikipedia is minimal and the results might well tell us more about what the outside world are really looking for. Moreover, we will be getting that information without the users realising that they are being monitored - the ideal scenario for an experment.
The most likely way to this article is via the statement immediately above the junction list in M1 motorway that says: "A version of this list, suitable for printing can be found here."
New articles always get a large number of hits on Day 1 and Day 2. Therafter the hit count drops. That is the hit count that we need to see, or are we so impatient as a community that we try to forecast what the outside world really rather than do a little experimenting to see what they really want. For the experiment to work, AfD editors must avoid visiting the site.

All I am asking is to let the users decide - after all they are our customers.Martinvl (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is not needed, the junction list can be included in the main article. ZoeL (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the table is in the main article, and a special version just for printing is not needed. As for Martinvl's comment about strip maps, they aren't as common in the US as he is implying. Imzadi 1979 → 22:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a travel guide. This is by self-admission of the author a travel guide. I rather think that the existence of WP:NOTTRAVEL is proof enough that "the users" have already made a decision here as to the suitability of this content. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Well-intentioned article, but on the wrong website. Content forks are a pain to maintain, and we shouldn't have duplicate information in Wikipedia pages just because someone might want to print out part of a page. For anyone who really wants to print off a list of motorway junctions from Wikipedia, on most computers a copy-paste into a word processor will do the job. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTTRAVEL as cited several times already. I personally feel that the creator's intentions are in themselves sound reason for deletion (using Wikipedia as an "experiment" to judge "potential to create books of junction lists"?) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG, completely unsourced. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redundant to list in main article. Dough 48 72 02:18, 18 October 2011 (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.