Deletion of Delaware Route 17

Comment: because, as exemplified in a statement of one of the proponents of deletion, "in general, it is considered |bad |form to launch a re-nom or a different nom on a Pennsylvania Route 370|similar topic for a reason when that |same reason clearly failed in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 370|previous nomination." (wikilinks added
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT||WP:NOTE)

Comment: per the precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 370 and  as well as . Darth
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ROADOUTCOMES||WP:N)

Comment: I realise this is going to have no effect on the outcome (except possibly preventing a snow close), but I questioned the notability of a Talk:M-147 (Michigan highway)|similar article and said that I would suggest deletion if it came to AFD then. I can not see how an article that has no real coverage outside of maps can have notability. It is like writing an article on an object just based off a picture or diagram. It fails  which has more weight to my mind than Roadoutcomes and a Wikiprojects notability guideline. The  argument seems a bit of a stretch too. If we use the same reasoning for almanacs we would have blanket inclusion of "weather forecasts, farmers' planting dates, tide tables
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:5P)