I'll point back to a previous comment where AARoads came up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37957549 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37957549 It's v

I'll point back to a previous comment where AARoads came up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37957549 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37957549 It's very G/O Media-clickbaity to call this "going rogue". The editors aren't subverting anything. This isn't the first and won't be the last fork of a Wikipedia community over the increasingly tightened, deletionism-favoring screws of notability and sourcing policies. The only people "going rogue" are the organized groups on Wikipedia moving across wildly different topics in order to hammer them all into one uniform shape that serves nobody as well as it had or could. EDIT: The Gizmodo article doesn't link to the US Roads group's own rationale for leaving, which fills in some gaps from the rather low-content article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Newsletter/Issues/Volume10/Issue01 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roa... > Since August 2022, our project has faced several external challenges that made several members question the viability of editing on Wikipedia in ways that Covid-19 didn't. The notability of highway articles in general became a focus of New Page Patrollers. Additionally, the ability to continue using maps as sources was called into question. Since then, we initiated an RfC to clarify if there was support for long-standing citation practices, namely could we continue to cite maps as sources in our articles? The results of that RfC were mixed. While chatting amongst ourselves online, it became clear that continuing to hope that another RfC or deletion discussion would go our way was an exercise in futility. In the background to all of this, other categories of articles were on the chopping block. First it was articles on Olympic athletes, and then it was cricket and area code articles.