Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channelization (roads)

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 (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Channelization (roads) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Per WP:NEO UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 01:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article because there is a potential to greatly expand the article using the sources which I cited, but by someone else besides me because I am not a traffic engineer. This is a similar situation to another article I created, where I also created a seed sentence with minimal content intended for expansion (First version). I specifically listed a stub line on the bottom of the Channelization (roads) article in order to attract other editors to it to expand it. Mapsax (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-reply I just noticed WP:NEO; "channelization" is not a neologism, as illustrated in the official sources at the bottom of the article. Mapsax (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A wretched term, to be sure, but it's not a neologism. The word has existed for a half-century. Look at the article's external links and check out the ghits. Majoreditor (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Majoreditor. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - really needs more sources addressing the concept, but I think it's fine for this to stay, not a neologism.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and source - Yeah, I've heard the term too. Just needs appropriate sourcing. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 17:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google searching with abbreviations of various state DOTs brings back a generous amount. Examples which use the term somewhere on the page:
  • http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environMent/flex/ch08.htm
  • http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/toc.htm
  • http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/US395/Wild+RoseRd/
  • http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/hqdiv/p-r-div/maps/2004rfc/
  • http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC/TEOS_Publications/PDF/Traffic_Manual.pdf (~1 MB)
  • http://www.dot.state.oh.us/dist2/publicmeetings/US20A/
  • http://www.michigan.gov/documents/MDOT_US-41_M28_chapter3_108598_7.pdf (~1 MB)
  • http://www.katsmpo.org/06-08_TIP_Projects_Amended_Feb_06.pdf
  • http://www.tippecanoe.in.gov/egov/docs/1110834827_171997.pdf (~1 MB but only 1 page)
  • Sufficient?  :) Mapsax (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another self-echo Now that there are multiple sources, am I supposed to add some to the article to offset the single source that's there, or is just giving examples here enough? Wikipedia:Verifiability, cited above, seems to convey that the latter is acceptable, but I've also seen the "page only uses one source" template. If the former, I'd like to ask for assistance, especially since the result appears so far to be keep. Mapsax (talk) 20:16, 5 February 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.