Talk:Scalable Urban Traffic Control

Contested deletion
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --Xfxie (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

1. This page only introduces an adaptive traffic control system based on the same style as two other adaptive traffic control systems in wiki:


 * Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic System
 * InSync adaptive traffic control system

2. Modifications have been made based on the suggestions from JamesBWatson:


 * All words that are "somewhat promotional in tone" are removed.
 * Independent references and links have been gradually added to make it a more neutral article.

Contested deletion
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... Author just created the article yesterday and is working to tone down the non-neutral point of view. There is a likely COI, in that the author is quoting some of his own papers, but this is a matter of editing, not whole article deletion. Other reasons this deletion is not uncontroversial:


 * In the references, there are two newspaper articles and at least one peer-reviewed article (Proceedings of the IEEE) that are reliable sources that don't seem to directly involve the author of the article. The other references may be reliable but primary, depending on if the sources are peer-reviewed. The topic looks like it could be notable.


 * The nom (JamesBWatson) previously PRODed the article for notability and for being 'somewhat promotional in tone'. The PROD was declined and the typical action is to then take it to AfD if there are still concerns.


 * But instead the article was nominated for CSD. Between the nom's PROD and the same nom's CSD, I don't see any large trend in the diffs from 'somewhat promotional' to 'unambiguously promotional'.

--Mark viking (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because...

I've added a quick-and-dirty criticism section. Given time, I'm sure that genuine anti-traffic-signal activists will come forth with more thoughtful material about why traffic signals are ruinous.

I concur with what User:Mark viking said about the notability of the topic.

I don't see any V1agr@ or your photos as promised here. Doing research, starting a company, building a prototype, getting a city to test it, talking to reporters, and publishing in a scientific journal don't seem like a typical spammer's modus operandi. Tagging it for NPOV NPOV or WP:COI would have been more suitable. --24.24.214.15 (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved, not in common usage, but redirect created. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Scalable Urban Traffic Control → SURTRAC – shorter and more memorable name. Relisted. 15:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC) 24.24.214.15 (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment per WP:MOSTM, I think Surtrac would be more appropriate. Such a title is a potential future disambiguation page, which could be addressed in future as and when the need arises. -- Trevj (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Couldn't this just be dealt with by a redirect from SURTRAC, which should have been set up anyway?  Skinsmoke (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The acronym is not is common useage across english. I created the redirect.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.