Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China National Highway 110 traffic jam

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. The participants were divided between merging the content to the article about the highway, or keeping it as a separate article; some individuals suggested either alternative. Very few urged an outright delete. Within WP:EVENT, there is room for individuals to make a case concerning whether an event would have "enduring historical significance" or "a significant lasting effect"; the same guideline gives room to argue over whether an event has "widespread" (national or international) impact and is "widely" covered in diverse sources. Although it has been pointed out that the highway has problems with traffic jams, it was also pointed out that the unusual duration of the event was a factor in worldwide coverage. Mandsford 17:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

China National Highway 110 traffic jam

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

As others have said on the talk page WP:NOTNEWS. There is no way that this story meets the requirements of WP:EVENT. Wikinews is the right place for this. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, this should be on Wikinews instead. Perhaps some mention could be made on the article on the freeway itself, but this doesn't need its own article.--Life in General, Master of Tropes 13:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<ec>Weak Keep - This is a pretty big event and not very common though does not seem to meet WP:NOTNEWS. Derild 49 21 ☼ 13:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I previously closed this AFD per Speedy Keep criterion #5. However, I have since removed the article from Template:In the news, so I am reopening the AFD. NW (Talk) 15:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, shouldn't we have had a discussion about whether to remove it from the In the News first before we have this discussion? This whole debate seems to jumping around a lot. Remember (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into China National Highway 110. I was under the impression that this was an extraordinary occurrence, but it appears that this isn't the case. However, it surely warrants inclusion in the highway's article. —David Levy 15:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per not#news and David. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. This is a somewhat significant story, comparable to the traffic jams during the evacuation of New Orleans prior to Hurricane Katrina. However if the article cannot be significantly improved then it should be merged. ~A H 1^(TCU) 15:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This isn't some tabloidy run of the mill story, of the kind that WP:NOTNEWS is referring to. This is a traffic jam for the history books. Just because its IN the news does not mean it falls under WP:NOTNEWS. A merge discussion can take place on whatever talk page is desired, but I feel the information belongs here. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with Umbralcorax. Remember (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not an unprecedented event, but something which has occurred multiple times on the same highway. This isn't news, it's just the norm. Most sources don't even discuss the event, but the issue of traffic congestion in China as a whole. Maybe you could merge this to China National Highway 110 or Transportation_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Road, but to single out this as a singular unique and notable event is disingenuous. - hahnch e n 17:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into China National Highway 110; put it as its own section of "current issues." みんな空の下 (トーク) 18:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - We don't need to create a new page for every news topic or wikipedia would grow exponetially. I agree that this should be merged into China National Highway 110 as it isn't a unique event; it seems to happen often on that highway. We don't create a seperate article for each hurricane in a season, we merge all of them into one and only create articles for major hurricanes. --Jmanfffreak (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But merge into China National Highway 110 before deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Crosstown Traffic (song). Lugnuts (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Whoa, hold on a second: Why would you want to redirect this to a non-Chinese song? みんな空の下 (トーク) 22:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lugnuts enjoys wasting people's time with nonsense. —David Levy 23:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Esp. when you've got knobs debating something of little or no importance. Lugnuts (talk) 06:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to China National Highway 110. Edison (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to China National Highway 110. But this is not worth its own article. Some cities suffer basically perpetual traffic jams, hardly remarkable these days... -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 21:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: as nominator, I also believe merging and redirecting is fine, as long as this is not a stand alone article.Qwyrxian (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand A lot of attention: see [1]. It is a notable event in many ways by itself, in terms of traffic engineering and global economics. hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 23:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merge and redirect to China National Highway 110. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into China National Highway 110; Not important enough as a stand-alone article. Seeyardee (talk) 00:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Transportation_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Road with the view that the traffic situation could be branched into a more complete article as the content becomes more mature. If the scope of this topic is wider than this one particular event, or highway, that is where the content should be allowed to grow. aliasd·U·T 01:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into China National Highway 110. Mnmazur (talk)
Keep or merge I think that this event is just a highly publicized jam that is not uncommon for that area/highway. However, it appears to have been getting quite a bit of coverage, and, though I can't tell if that will continue or if it will have a lasting impact, a merger is quite reasonable. —fetch ·comms 04:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For anyone worried about whether or not this will continue, it's already been reported ([2]) to have "vanished." As to lasting impact...while I can agree that bad traffic overall may have a lasting impact in China (as it does in other countries), I don't see how this specific jam can have any lasting impact. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into parent article. Coverage of the topic is worthwhile, but the length of the parent article does not merit spinning off this as a seperate topic. Just move the text to the article on the highway, and both articles become better. --Jayron32 06:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into parent article. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, nothing encyclopedic of note in the article; or merge into parent article. Strange Passerby (talk) 05:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to China National Highway 110. Haus^Talk 19:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, seems to be only one notable sentence "...some drivers have reported being stuck in the traffic jam for five days.". --Kslotte (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename "2010 China National Highway 110 traffic jam". It, like 2005 levee failures in Greater New Orleans, is an incident that points to a failure of planning, in this case central planning by an authoritarian government. The chronic nature of the problem should be covered in China National Highway 110 and the underlying planning failure and remedial measures discussed in Transportation in the People's Republic of China. See the New York Times article http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/28/world/asia/28china.html for an exploration of the underlying issues. Fred Talk 18:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you propose appending "2010" to the title? —David Levy 19:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because while this event is one of the first to be news worldwide it is a recurring event of varying severity, and will be until alternatives are built which reduce traffic on 110 in that area. Fred Talk 22:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Article titles#Precision and disambiguation. Unless and until another China National Highway 110 traffic jam of comparable magnitude occurs, such disambiguation is unneeded (and illogical, as the lesser traffic congestion from which it's intended to differentiate surely has occurred in 2010 as well). —David Levy 10:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very sophisticated but this event is project to last for about a month, see the Wall Street Journal article "BEIJING—A 60-mile traffic jam near the Chinese capital could last until mid-September, officials say." Fred Talk 23:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't follow. What is the relevance? —David Levy 02:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here is coverage of a "second" or "extended" jam, "Monster jam is back, puts 2,000 vehicles to standstill" It could be treated as an extended jam or repeated acute jams. There is road construction. Notable event, even if it is only the first evidence of a continuing chronic problem. Fred Talk 08:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, does this pertain to the naming issue discussed above? —David Levy 09:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This event is of such a magnitude and uniqueness that I have not problem seeing that this belongs as an encyclopedic article. __meco (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, garnered worldwide coverage because of its magnitude and uniqueness. Seems notable therefore. Malick78 (talk) 11:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into China National Highway 110. Both are short articles.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This got a lot of news coverage but there's not a ton to say about it beyond that, so it can be covered just as well in the main article. Besides, the Jingzang highway has had many other traffic jams like this, so it would make sense to cover them all in the same place. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This event is notable enough to be an article.--Tomchen1989 (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Could become more important. and per Derild4921 -- Sandcat01 (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination is quite mistaken as this meets most every requirement of WP:EVENT, being significant, covered globally in a wide variety of media &c. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge into main road article. Dr. Blofeld 21:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After hearing about the traffic jam BECAUSE of the Main Page, I've seen coverage from Canada's CBC News and other links. With a multitude of reliable sources and perhaps an entry in the Guinness Book of World Records, there is something quite unprecedented about this that should be covered as a separate article. MMetro (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I suggest to keep. If anyone insist to merge, it'd better be merged into Transportation in the People's Republic of China#Road. If keep, it'd better be renamed to "2010 Beijing–Tibet expressway and China National Highway 110 traffic jam". Because the traffic jam was mostly on China National Highway 110 (G110) AND Beijing–Tibet expressway (G6). Actually, Chinese media tend to call it "Beijing–Tibet expressway traffic jam"(京藏高速堵车). According to Chinese media, it seems that Beijing–Tibet expressway got worse situation than Highway 110, the longest queue was on Beijing–Tibet expressway, but the road maintenance is on National Highway 110. Here's a map, the black line is Beijing–Tibet expressway, the green is National Highway 110, the red is for the main traffic jam.--Tomchen1989 (talk) 06:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is quite a notable event. My second preference would be to merge into another article. Definitely not delete though. Themeparkgc Talk 10:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into China National Highway 110. Worthy of a section in the main article. I saw it on CNN and it was in the Los Angeles Times so it's notable enough at least for inclusion. hbdragon88 (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or Strong merge per almost all of the above. Nolelover 01:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Strong Merge, same reason as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Lithuania–Russia crisis, also if this event is notable, why the article is way too short? Qajar (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2010 (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.