Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Passing lane
Passing lane was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep the article.
POV complaints about people who drive in the passing/fast lane. Without the POV parts, dictdef. This might merit a sentence or two on Highway, but not its own article. — mendel ☎ 00:29, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Have trouble seeing why this should be deleted. (I was not the one that nominated it) [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 00:31, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC) (moved from VfD page — mendel ☎ 00:39, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC))
- Delete because it's POV and doesn't contain any important information. Wyllium 00:54, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)
- Move the dicdef into highway per Mendel's suggestion. (done) I'd probably recommend making this a redirect to highway just to prevent it from popping up again. Rossami 01:39, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Fix it / send to cleanup. zoney ♣ talk 02:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. What's there doesn't seem all that POV to me, at least in the traditional sense of the word. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 02:04, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Redirect: It's not a question of POV as much as it is that this facet of the highway is not really a thing that bears much discussion. The phenomenon of the passing lane should be discussed in miniature (without so much driving advice) in the Highway article. Additionally, the article is not exactly opinion POV as much as national POV. In the US, for example, 3 lane roads are pretty common and not at all "in some places." (Additionally, telling people that the "passing lane" should only be used for passing on a 4 lane road is like telling people that using "hopefully" is incorrect: it's true, but it's too late.) Geogre 04:50, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's the driving advice that led me to call POV. I realize a lot of people wish people would stay out of the fast lane except when passing, but an encyclopedia article isn't really the place for that lecture. — mendel ☎ 16:16, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Exactly. The article on Turn signal should not say, "Many people fail to use them when making lane changes, but they endanger themselves and others with this laziness and should be forced to lose a digit every time they make an unsignalled turn." Nor should I say it here, either. :-) Geogre 17:13, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Indeed, the choice of language and style needs to be carefully chosen, but the article on turn signal could have a paragraph on legal requirements to use indicators in various countries. (with a link to roundabout for how to indicate at such an arrangement). Such details are information, not especially intended as advice or instruction, and are entirely encyclopaedic. I do feel that this article needs further work though - it is kind of conversational/ranting. zoney ♣ talk 18:35, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep or merge/redirect to highway —siroχo 05:27, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep article as it stands now that it has been cleaned up. GRider 21:56, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Looks like someone has done a good job on cleanup. --L33tminion | (talk) 21:16, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Verifiable and factually accurate -- [[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 23:52, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.