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 (WP:SNOW). The nomination has been countered in the discussion below. Furthermore, the nomination appears to be based upon the sourcing within the article, rather than the overall availability of sources about the topic (see WP:NRVE). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concurrency (road) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All of the sources in this article are either:

a.) roadgeek fansites

b.) DOT listings or road maps that prove only that the concurrencies exist

c.) tagged otherwise as unreliable

Nowhere could I find anything that discusses the actual term as an encyclopedic topic. This is just original research plain and simple. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: AfD isn't cleanup, and contrary to the nomination, this concept (under this or other names) does exist. The nominator cannot dispute that the concept that a single section of roadway bearing two or more highway numbers is not a common occurrence. Imzadi 1979 → 07:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A point to rebut a flawed part of the above analysis of the sources: a and c are the same category. The two footnotes tagged as unreliable are the two self-published roadgeek sites being cited. As to part b, there is a news article present. In addition to that, I offer:
    • [1], a page from the makers of ArcGIS cartography software that defines the concept under the term "overlap" and how it applies to a cartographic workflow.
    • The Wisconsin DOT uses "concurrent" on a trivia page about their state trunk highway system and in a project study related to I-41 in the state.
    • The Texas DOT uses the same term to describe overlapping highway routings.
    • A travel guide website uses the term.
    • ArcGIS also uses "concurrency" in its user help forums.

    This shows the term is in use in several contexts, sufficient to warrant notability. Again, WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Imzadi 1979 → 09:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Imzadi1979. --Rschen7754 07:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Roadgeek sites may be unreliable as self-published sources, but they are verifiable, numerous, and global. The article certainly is miles away from anything great, but it discusses a genuine topic that is well-covered. In addition, over 4000 pages (I really wish it was 9000) link to this topic. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 08:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Imzadi1979:, @Floydian: Then where are the reliable sources hmm? Can't have an article without good sources. And I ain't seeing them. If there are good sources, prove it. Don't just say "it's notable because it exists in a lot of places and has a lot of inbound links". Well no shit, it has a lot of links — every highway on Wikipedia has a page. It exists. But where is the encyclopedic discussion on it? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 09:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't think the nom is challenging that the concept exists. The nominator makes a valid point. When you examine the sources, the first one uses the term "coincident" and the second uses the term "common section." None of the sources use the word "concurrent" or "concurrency." Doing a quick Google search turns up nothing which supports that the term "concurrency" is not a coloquialism. I'm inclined to support deletion. However, this may be an acceptable time to ignore all rules. I believe this article is a good change by common sense, and it improves the encyclopedia. --hmich176 09:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above, my reply here is handled by a refutation of a misleading portion of the nomination statement. Imzadi 1979 → 09:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate your effort to pull in more sources, @Imzadi1979:. --hmich176 10:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This article covers an important road topic. All of the above USRD editors have good points as to why it should be kept. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 09:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Imzadi1979. Appropriate source material exists. The article is not "original research plain and simple." --hmich176 10:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I suggest you read WP:NEGLECT TenPoundHammer especially "A variation of this is a WP:POINT: an editor wants an article improved but lacks the time or skills to actually improve it, so the article is nominated for deletion in the hope that another editor will take notice and improve the article during its pending deletion period and before the artificial deadline of the deletion process." --AdmrBoltz 13:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Sources exist, and while the current sources are not suitable for the article, others can be found. Epicgenius (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per above. TCN7JM 15:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per above. I'll add that any reasonable person would concede this article is full of fancruft, excessive examples and sadly probably always will be. It's just one of those topics that every roadgeek feels compelled to add, "ohh you forgot there's one in MY hometown, let me add it in bold type in the lead". However, the criteria for deletion should be notability. Nobody would argue that U.S. Route 66 should be deleted because that article is similarly full of fancruft, barely relevant random fact insertions and pop culture irrelevance. Dave (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2014 (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.