Commons:Deletion requests/File:US 17-1.svg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This highway, if it was signed, existed from 1926 to 1933. This marker, as drawn, uses the 1971 specifications for the US Highway marker. Imzadi 1979 → 00:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use Jcb (talk) 10:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This highway, if it was signed, existed from 1926 to 1933. This marker, as drawn, uses the 1971 specifications for the US Highway marker. As such, this marker never existed in this form. Previous nomination was closed without discussion because the image was in use, but that did not address the fact that this marker in this design is an anachronism. Imzadi 1979 → 00:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy
Keep We don't care. If a Wikimedia project wants to use it, they get to use it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Not in use and should not be used. There's no proof that this highway ever existed off paper (note, NO other US Highways were ever designated with suffixed numbers; 3-digit numbers had the additional digit prefixed.) No Wikimedia project should be using something that's an anachronistic falsehood. Imzadi 1979 → 01:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- No, we don't care about truth. We are a tool of the other Wikimedia projects; they're the ones who get to care about truth. This image was used up unto a week ago on U.S. Route 17-1.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Not in use and should not be used. There's no proof that this highway ever existed off paper (note, NO other US Highways were ever designated with suffixed numbers; 3-digit numbers had the additional digit prefixed.) No Wikimedia project should be using something that's an anachronistic falsehood. Imzadi 1979 → 01:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Nonexistent shield, do not know what shields look like or even if it was signed. Dough4872 01:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The shield is wrong and incorrect. We shouldn't be promoting the use of wrong shields. --Rschen7754 (talk) 01:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete since this was never a highway. Keeping the graphic would be a promotion of will-full ignorance. - Floydian (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Weak Keep until a 1926-1933 version of the sheild can be used. While some doubts linger whether this highway existed, there were multiple map manufacturers that covered the route(http://members.cox.net/ncroads/ushwys/us017171.html#171), which gives it's existance some crediblity. ----DanTD (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Dan, creating a period-accurate marker under the correct naming scheme isn't a problem, but the lack of one should not be a reason to keep an anachronistic falsehood around. Either this graphic is false and should be deleted, or you have a valid reason to keep a graphic that is not in use around. The link you list is a self-published source which isn't acceptable for use on Wikipedia as a source, and frankly, I don't think we should be relying on it here either. The fact still remains that a US 17-1 marker using 1971 specifications is inaccurate. Imzadi 1979 → 01:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Have you checked the 1929 Rand McNally atlas and found the page to be wrong, or are you dismissing it because it doesn't support your argument?--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- No, but in general, we do not use any of the so-called "roadgeek" websites for source material as we have found several of them to contain errors and un-sourced speculation. Wikipedia policy is that self-published sources have to be proven to be reliable; there is no assumption that they are at all. Now, even if that website were correct, it still wouldn't disprove my core argument: If the highway existed, in actual signage next to the road, it would have used a totally different style marker based on the 1926 specifications for US Highways. This graphic is based on a set of specifications published in 1971, some 38 years after the supposed end of this designation's usage. A 1929 atlas will not alter the fact that 1971 specifications used by this marker didn't exist in 1929. Imzadi 1979 → 01:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Have you checked the 1929 Rand McNally atlas and found the page to be wrong, or are you dismissing it because it doesn't support your argument?--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Dan, creating a period-accurate marker under the correct naming scheme isn't a problem, but the lack of one should not be a reason to keep an anachronistic falsehood around. Either this graphic is false and should be deleted, or you have a valid reason to keep a graphic that is not in use around. The link you list is a self-published source which isn't acceptable for use on Wikipedia as a source, and frankly, I don't think we should be relying on it here either. The fact still remains that a US 17-1 marker using 1971 specifications is inaccurate. Imzadi 1979 → 01:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as per Rschen7754 and Floydian. --P199 (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, not in use anymore. --Bencmq (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
