A couple points on their complaints: you _can_ cite primary sources, but you can't _rely_ on them. That's beyond notability altogether. It's still relevant to w

A couple points on their complaints: you _can_ cite primary sources, but you can't _rely_ on them. That's beyond notability altogether. It's still relevant to why Roads would want to fork (there aren't a lot of news publications doing feature stories on random highways) but it comes down to informal nonenforcement giving way to a few hardasses flagging everything they can as soon as their attention is turned toward a particular domain. Because there's very little effort required to flag articles for deletion, and the burden to keep is often on the contributors doing research on a 7-day timeframe if there are even just one or two editors supporting deletion, most times the contributors eventually give up running the research treadmill and the content gets deleted anyway. And WP:GEOROAD is a subject-specific notability guideline, like WP:NSPORT is. Those aren't immutable; NSPORT was fundamentally changed in 2022,[1] and those changes now justify all these deletions of international footballer articles created before. If the Roads editors have all left, there'll be little or no opposition to changing WP:GEOROAD,[2] and deletions of that content from WP could get done even faster. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Sports_notability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(geographic_features)#Requesting_feedback_re._GEOROAD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(geo... - and I see some of the editors who participated in NSPORT-related deletions this summer also in there advocating to change GEOROAD and make it more explicitly defer to GNG, and therefore easier to delete articles.