Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detour

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. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Detour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTDICTIONARY - this article consists nothing more than a dictionary definition for traffic. Its lack of sources indicate that the topic does not have sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article. I'd propose soft redirecting to Wiktionary. Aasim (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment When I created the article, it contained material which was later moved to and expanded at Permanently signed detour route. It's not surprising, then, that the Detour article has still been mostly empty since. It would be odd, though, for this "parent" article not to exist. I contend that since most highway manuals have sections on temporary traffic control related to construction projects/roadworks, there's still a chance that the Detour article could still be expanded some. Mapsax (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Yes the article is a stub, but it can be expanded. It's a too common subject to be simply a Wiktionary entry. And, if it's deleted, what will happen to Permanently signed detour route? This is technically the parent article of it. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's plenty of sourcing on this. Just because the existing article is a stub doesn't mean it has to be deleted. I quickly found [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and that's just a small selection of the coverage out there. I might take up improving this article in the near future. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I have begun working on this article. I'm not done, but I've already expanded it significantly and added three references. I don't believe this article met the criteria for deletion as it was before this AfD, but I'm finding now there is a great deal of significant coverage on detours, and I am adding it as I find it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your work. Another problem is that this title is too broad as "detour" and "diversion" are also used in terms of pedestrian traffic and rail traffic. In no ways am I thinking this should be deleted; I am thinking the title should be redirected to Wiktionary. Aasim (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, wouldn't the solution be to make Detour a parent article to several more specific articles? This has already partially been done with Permanently signed detour route. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same thought, though I think that having different sections on this article rather than whole different articles would be better since it's likely none would have excessive content. For example, railroad shooflies came to mind – see refs at Glossary of North American railway terms § S – whose section would probably have brief content. Other infrastructure could follow suit. Mapsax (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral:*Delete or Draftify until fit for mainspace by a WP:HEY wereupon my !vote can be regarded as neutral. It insufficient to CITEBOMB this article but it is necessary to demonstrate a suitable article can be created from those sources. Thankyou. 00:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs)

I'm switching !vote to neutral as some effort has been made to bring the article to a better standard, I'll leave it to others to determine if this is enough. I also note earlier verions were larged and then chomped and those version ought to be considered during the nomination, but I'm not going to delve through historic versions and I leave that to others. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - for attribution reasons, the page history must be kept as content was copied to permanently signed detour route, so if the closing admin finds a consensus to delete it should be directly made into a redirect/soft redirect so as to not delete the history. eviolite (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eviolite: It's good of you to point this out but unfortunately I have not been able to identity revision on target where the copy occurred on permanently signed detour route. If you can indentifiy the revision, in actually the date alone will do, when the paste was made into permanently signed detour route please ping me and I'll sort the attribution templating. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark: The very first revision of permanently signed detour route was copied from detour, specifically this version, though my main concern was not templates (since Riversense did attribute on the copy) but rather that if the page detour was directly deleted, the page history and attribution would be completely gone. However, that does not look like a likely outcome right now. eviolite (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added {{copied}} to Talk:Detour, Talk:permanently signed detour route & Talk:Special route which a closer should check for on delete. APologies for not spotting the copy was at the start of permanently signed detour route. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I think it's worth giving it a shot for cleanup, but it needs more to make it encyclopedic (i.e. - history of detours, rules about detours around the world, etc.) and if that's not possible, I'd support a deletion once we've given it some time and no progress is made. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notability is demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While Aasim (the nominator)'s assertion that WP:NOTDICTIONARY is applicable here might have been correct when this article was first nominated for deletion, the content of this article now definitely goes beyond a simple dictionary definition of the subject(s) it discusses. Also, Trainsandotherthings has provided plenty of sources to demonstrate this topic's notability. --Zander251 (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as it is a clearly notable subject, and it has now been expanded sufficiently.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2021 (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.