Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Average Daily Traffic

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 keep. The article has developed while this discussion has been taking place, and it now appears that it can develop into a reasonable article. I am therefore going for 'Keep' as at worst it would be a 'no consensus keep'.Bduke (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Average Daily Traffic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete basically a dictionary definition and little more, without refs or context. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Very little content about the subject. An unreferenced article that fails WP:N.--RyRy5 (talk) 01:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Too small, unreferenced, and lacks of notability macy^talk 01:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/merge The general topic is hugely notable and this detail is a useful search term. The article should be kept until a suitable merge destination emerges. See Category:Road traffic management. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Its basically a dictionery meaning..., Prom3th3an (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It's for wiktionary, if anywhere. Maybe not even there, as the term means exactly what the individual words mean with no synthesis.
• Comment - The dicdef arguments above seem based upon ignorance of the topic and offer no evidence to demonstrate that this stub cannot be expanded. To see the potential of this article, please consider a good list of potential sources such as Google Scholar. It seems clear from these many sources that one could write a considerable amount about the topic: how one defines and measures the average; its uses and consequences; some actual examples; historical growth; etc. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak keep Many articles are mere stubs, and need expanding. I would like to see it expanded, but if not expanded within the currency of this AFD, it should be trswikified to the dictionary. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it is the academic and profession term used to measure the vehicle traffic on a road. With no disrespect to the participants in this AfD, a lot of the arguments are based on not understanding the term, not doing anything to attempt to verify the existences it has a professional term, and merely not understanding what a dictionary is. As pointed out by Colonel Warden there are thousands of hits on Google Scholar; most certainly these show notability of the term. I have expanded the article somewhat, and included two references to show notability; but I in no way an expert on the field, and have no ability to write more than a few sentences. On another matter, the article should be renamed, removing incorrect use of caps. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:40, 2 June 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.