This itinerary has been at outline status without being substantially edited within one year, as discussed at Talk:U.S. Highway 395. According to our deletion policy, itineraries must either be actively worked on or achieve some level of completion to be kept. @Galtonova: has been absent from Wikivoyage since starting this article. Ground Zero (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm a keep, because it has enough information about the part of the route in California to be of use to a driver planning a trip. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our deletion policy says: "Article entries should be deleted from the site when... they are itineraries that have been at outline status without being substantially edited within one year." This meets that definition. Ground Zero (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some work to improve the article. Granted, it needs more content to be of quality, but it should have a sufficient template to be worth keeping. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 02:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't it say they are subject to (implicitly possible) deletion through Votes for deletion? If deletion were automatic, we wouldn't discuss it here. It is highly precedented for outline-level itineraries that are of some use to be kept. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say explicitly that deletion is automatic, so I wouldn't delete without discussion. At the same time, if an itinerary meets the criterion for deletion, I don't think it is a valid argument to say that we haven't always deleted the. Are you arguing for an exception to the policy in this case? On what basis? Ground Zero (talk) 11:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unless significant improvements – what I can read in the article in its current form is the same I can find elsewhere. SelfieCity's improvements did improve the article, though, but I'd expect a bit more. //shb (t | c | m) 03:24, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You really think it's of no use for a driver to plan? Sure, it needs descriptions for some of the place names Selfie City just added, but it's already somewhat usable. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:18, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe it's me, but in its current state where it merely lists towns with no description, I would read the Wikipedia equivalent instead. //shb (t | c | m) 09:37, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The policy says that an outline should be deleted. So if it isn't usable.... Ground Zero (talk) 11:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have discussions if deletion is supposed to be automatic? It looks like we need to have a policy discussion again. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And restarted here. You are remembering a previous wording of policy, I think. I am not arguing for an "exception to the policy". Reread the policy, please! Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:40, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the policy that I am referring to, copied and pasted from the current version:

Article entries should be deleted from the site when... they are itineraries that have been at outline status without being substantially edited within one year. Since just about any topic can be an itinerary, itineraries must either be actively worked on or achieve some level of completion to be kept. Template:Outlineitinerary should be used to tag itineraries at the outline level. Note that sufficiently famous, marked routes such as Alaska Highway or Annapurna Circuit are exempt regardless of the status or age of the article.

Nowhere does it say that "deletion is supposed to be automatic". But we have a policy that you don't want to apply in this case. That sounds like an exception to me. Ground Zero (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have to make the policy consistent. Let's discuss it on the talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I think "achieve some level of completion" covers not deleting itineraries that are of some use, even though at outline level. That's in the existing policy, which I think does not need to be changed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we include this in the policy: "they are itineraries that have been at outline status without being substantially edited within one year", if we mean not to delete them, but to apply a second, much more relaxed test of "achieve some level of completion"? It seems that "itineraries at outline status without being substantially edited within one year" is entirely meaningless in your interpretation. Ground Zero (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are still subject to discussion in votes for deletion. You're acting like opposing deletion of itineraries that are not at usable status, though arguably still of some use, is unprecedented and that no such itineraries have ever been kept, but you know better. I suggest you discuss the policy in the talk page thread I linked. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will contribute to that discussion, in the morning, when I am not so tired. I think it is clear that there is a conflict between the "outline for a year" part if the rule, and the ""of some use" part of the rule. I a well aware that policy us not always applied consistently. That is not a convincing argument for not applying it.

My concern here, beyond the application of policy, is that not applying the "outline for a year" rule will lead to highway buffs creating outline articles for highways that don't have any particular historic or tourist value, but that link a lot of places. We should not encourage the creation of a bunch of low-value list articles. Ground Zero (talk) 03:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I surely respect your concern, but I would say that there's a difference between encouraging the creation of low-value articles and deleting articles that have some value. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, I've done my best to add descriptions of the previously empty place names in Oregon. Maybe someone else would like to do Washington. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple descriptions in Washington and overall information about the route. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 16:35, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have tried to improve the article. For the record, I am familiar only with the southern half of the route in California, and not the sections in Oregon or Washington. That said, the article certainly passes the threshold for keeping at this stage. There is enough information present for a traveler to follow the entire route with a general understanding of what will be encountered along the way. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 16:38, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The version from three days ago was an easy delete vote, as it added nothing useful to me that I wouldn't get from a decent state sub-region article or simply following a Routebox. The recent content added to Understand puts it juuust that "some amount of completion" line I used above; it tells me what I can expect beyond a minimally-curated list of place names, and gives me reasons why I might take this route over the other beautiful highways in the western US (i.e., it has content that helps it get to Usable).

I've driven large sections of this route at various times, I'm happy to fill in gaps if the article looks like its on the way to Usable. I do think the route can support its own article; it's my recommendation for anyone looking to make a grand loop out of a Pacific Coast Highway roadtrip. Gerode (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result: nomination withdrawn. As the article has been improved, I'll withdraw the nomination so that we don't spend more time discussing it. If this route is of historical or other tourism value, then that is a good result. The article does not really identify what that is. If this is just another highway that goes through a bunch of places, I question whether it is a good use of Wikivoyagers' time to improve an article about an ordinary highway just because some one-time visitor to Wikivoyage has created a stub article. Contributors have to make that decision for themselves. Ground Zero (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ground Zero: I understand why this article may appear that way, given it's one of hundreds of U.S. highways and many of those routes aren't more than a collection of highways connected into a line drawn on a map. However, US-395 is different, and that's why I worked on the article. I have driven much of this route, and it's the only road that follows the Sierra Nevada mountains on their eastern side. It's an incredible route that provides some unique views of and access to those mountains, including ski resorts like Mammoth Lakes and Mono Lake.

I agree that most U.S. highways don't deserve their own article unless someone is really willing to turn them into a complete itinerary with interesting POIs. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 20:58, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SelfieCity: thanks for your contributions to the article, and for your personal perspective on the route. I don't think that perspective really comes through in the article. The lead paragraph of an article should explain why the reader would want to visit, but this one doesn't. I think that you could explain in the lead why you think US-395 is different, and worth the reader's time. Ground Zero (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice. I'll make sure to implement that. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 02:36, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]