Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrong-way concurrency

Wrong-way concurrency

Unsourced. Tagged Unencylopedic for a six weeks with no changes to the article. Pure Trivia and worse a neologism. A google for "wrong-way concurrency" site:gov shows ZERO hits. KelleyCook (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These things happen a lot in U.S. highways; I know of one less than an hour from me. There is very little chance that this could be expanded beyond a dicdef, as no reliable sources seem to use the term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look like this'll ever make WP:N, sadly. Transwiki to Wiktionary, maybe? Also suggest listing List of wrong-way concurrencies with this. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the list per your suggestion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and because I didn't make this clear, I favor deletion if a transwiki doesn't happen. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Fails WP:NOTE but is a suitable term for a dictionary. Delete here and Transwiki to Wiktionary with appropriate Wiktionary formatting. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 01:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

IMO the subject has info which goes beyond a dictionary def. --- Taroaldo (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: There is also a dictionary definition at Wiktionary. Also, the article does have more than a dictionary definition and has the potential for more. I change my vote to Weak Keep. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 01:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Its way beyond a dicdef, and may be known under other names, its the concept not the name. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I can see both sides. There may be issues with some criteria, but somehow the topic seems worthy. Perhaps a merge with Concurrency (road). --- Taroaldo (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge into Concurrency (road) - insufficiently notable term for an article in its own right. Terraxos (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Concurrency (road). Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge a small discussion into concurrency (road), delete the list. This is one of those things that roadgeeks (I'm cured, honest) find endlessly fascinating, everybody else, not so much. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost ramp (second nomination). I would suggest a transwiki if there were a Wikia for roads & highways (there is one for UK roads only). --Dhartung | Talk 07:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's trivia for highway spotters. The explanation is obvious, the incidence is not remarkable nor significant in its own right, and it does not lead to a phenomenon that is meaningful in other contexts. It's trivia. "List of roads with bumpy and then smooth and then bumpy surfaces" would be about as significant. Utgard Loki (talk) 12:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]