Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrong-way concurrency

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge article to concurrency (road) (seems to have been done already), Delete the list. Tikiwont (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong-way concurrency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

List of wrong-way concurrencies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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]
• Merge with concurrency (road) or weak keep if that outcome isn't acceptable. Has a small bit of notability, but not enough for an article IMO and he target is fine size-wise. Keep the list. Hobit (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the list; redirect the term. It's an interesting bit of trivia but can be covered in concurrency. --NE2 23:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• RedirectConcurrency or delete: If we forward this to concurrency then the article does not hoave to be delete. This may sound un-encyclopedia or WP:CRUFT--Freewayguy (Webmail) 00:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to concurrency (road). I'd be willing to host the list on my personal website (keeping the list page under the GFDL), which has some other roadcruft it'd fit in with. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Hobit. Keep the list, merge the info to a new section on Concurrency (road). --MPD ^{T / C} 02:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to a new section in the Concurrency (road) article as this subject appears notable enough for coverage but not enough for its own article. - Dravecky (talk) 06:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to concurrency (road) and keep the list, basically what MPD01605 said --Lukobe (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge wrong-way concurrency with concurrency but delete the list. IMO, it's far too common an occurrence to have a list of all of them. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge wrong-way concurrency with concurrency and delete the list. My views echo the ones stating that there are so many - if this is seen, expansion can get out of control.  — master son^{T - C} 21:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.