Deletion of New Jersey Route 64

Comment: to State highways in New Jersey per Milburn, or '''keep as separate article''' ''if'' |enough sources can be found. (BTW, I just came into this debate because the article was at the id you know|Did you know section of the Main Page
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:D)

Comment: This is a well-written article about a unique road (it is so short) that is adequately referenced with a variety of legitimate sources. It satisfies all Wikipedia policy and guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. In particular, it complies with  and . For notability, it has ''significant coverage'' and ''reliable sources'' that are ''presumed'' to be ''independent of the subject''. Further, it passed , whose ''inline citation'' criterion implicitly requires ''notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:MOS||WP:N||WP:DYK)

Comment: Indeed you have added more info, but nothing that makes this road meet , maybe the bridge itself does
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Wikipedia is not a |directory (nor is it an altas,:71.255.102.198 ), this road does not meet the standards for notability. (see 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:DIRECTORY||WP:N)

Comment: or at least '''Merge''' I can't see how this article fails any policies (it would be a very unusual directory that was anything like this article) so the only issue here is notability. If there is not enough verifiable material to write an independent article then per the reserve|editing policy the content should be preserved by merging to another article such as suggested by NE2 so long as the verifiable content is not lost
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: no coverage in reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject as required by 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)