Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overtaking
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. (aeropagitica) 08:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Overtaking
Deletion is indicated under WP:NOT, which includes includes dictionary entries and instruction manuals.Verklempt 23:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep. It goes into information about laws and about other countries, which is beyond a dictionary definition. --Masamage 23:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- That they drive on the other side of the road in some places is worthy of an encyclopedia entry on Overtaking? I agree that a cross-national comparison of driving rules could conceivably be a good article. But this is an article on Overtaking, not road construction or driving laws.Verklempt 23:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- No, you're right. The article would have to have more info to be good, but if it talked more about the legality of the practice in different areas, that could in fact be encyclopedic. I think talking about when it's a good idea to try it is worthy of non-OR coverage, too. However, I am weakening my vote, as I'm not sure who would care about this subject enough to improve it. --Masamage 00:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Do you mean "when it's a good idea to try" overtaking? Wouldn't that be instructional, and thus fall under WP:NOT?Verklempt 00:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Wellll, there are different levels of instruction. There's "First, put on your blinker; be sure to check all your mirrors and your blindspots! Then, speed up..." which, yeah, would be rather inappropriate. I phrased myself pretty badly--what I meant to talk about was a description of why someone would do this at all, but on second thought, that would probably take all of two sentences. Soooo nevermind. >_> --Masamage 01:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Do you mean "when it's a good idea to try" overtaking? Wouldn't that be instructional, and thus fall under WP:NOT?Verklempt 00:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- No, you're right. The article would have to have more info to be good, but if it talked more about the legality of the practice in different areas, that could in fact be encyclopedic. I think talking about when it's a good idea to try it is worthy of non-OR coverage, too. However, I am weakening my vote, as I'm not sure who would care about this subject enough to improve it. --Masamage 00:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- That they drive on the other side of the road in some places is worthy of an encyclopedia entry on Overtaking? I agree that a cross-national comparison of driving rules could conceivably be a good article. But this is an article on Overtaking, not road construction or driving laws.Verklempt 23:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Merge/Delete I see two ways this article could go. It could turn further into an instruction manual on the subject, or it could turn into the effects of Overtaking done badly, thus being more like Reckless_driving which could use some help too. Lord Rasputin 18:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Per the further reading section of the article, there's plenty more to write on the subject of overtaking. It has been a well-studied subject in psychology and road-safety research. There's plenty of source material yet to be plumbed. Keep. Uncle G 19:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Most of the further reading seems to be instructional, thus falling under WP:NOT. I agree that the psychology of raod safety would be a very good topic for an article, but it would not be entitled "Overtaking."Verklempt 20:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- 4 out of 10 is an odd definition of "most". ☺ Uncle G 09:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Most of the further reading seems to be instructional, thus falling under WP:NOT. I agree that the psychology of raod safety would be a very good topic for an article, but it would not be entitled "Overtaking."Verklempt 20:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Masamage and Uncle G. This is an example of an article that problem article where deletion is not needed. Vectro 21:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Vector's is precisely the relevant point. Article can be vastly improved but does not require deletion. But I wish to declare an interest. I am pressing for a disambiguation page for passing and, interestingly, Verklempt (the initiator of this deletion attempt), opposes this on the basis that overtaking and every usage of passing other than "passing oneself off as a member of different group" is not worthy of an encyclopedia article. Passing requires a disambiguation page because of articles such as passing off and message passing and, of course, overtaking. Paul Beardsell 22:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Note that those are already on pass which is already a disambiguation article. Uncle G 09:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes! And "Passing" will redirect there, as it should. Imagine if someone was blocking creation of the "pass" disambiguation page, insisting their favorite "pass" (e.g. "mountain pass" or "travel pass") article occupied that slot in the namespace. That's what's happening at "passing". Please feel free to enter the discussion at Talk:Passing. Paul Beardsell 10:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - per Uncle G. As the further reading section and a little digging shows, there are further aspects of overtaking (outside the psychology of road safety) that could be added. It needs a cleanup not deleting. Yomanganitalk 09:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It´s a collection of facts. It´s encyclopedic and a good basis for future improvements.~~
- 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.
