Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Area of refuge


 * 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. Has been open a month with no voices for delete other than nominator and evidence that this is a term of architecture and fire safety. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 23:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)  Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 23:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Area of refuge

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The two sources associated with the content of the article have a poor connection to the article as a whole. I'm not seeing anything that supports the list in the lead. Looking at the photos, it is difficult to discern how they connect to the subject. I feel that some of this content should be merged with... I'm not even sure because almost everything here is unsourced. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 21:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well why didn't you spend the time that you spent nominating for deletion on just looking for sources on the subject instead? You're supposed to do that before nominating, and doing so turns up plenty of textbooks on civil engineering and architecture that explain what this is and show how to make the article better.  The Google Books first page of results ("Area of refuge building emergency") for me was an entire list of such textbooks.  The first result  was a pointer to a 1-paragraph description, the second  was a pointer straight to a "glossary of key terms" entry for "area of refuge" and two further synonymous names, and the fifth  was a full 4-page discussion of the subject complete with explanatory diagrams on page 175.
 * User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage: If you see something without good sources, put in the effort and try to find some yourself, before burden-shifting onto other people with an AFD nomination. Please do the research.  It was dead easy in this case.  Uncle G (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I did look for sources before nominating thank you very much. Overall the article seems to be filled with original research, and probably should be merged with other articles. And I do not have access to see what those sources you provided above would even have to offer. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage: If you see something without good sources, put in the effort and try to find some yourself, before burden-shifting onto other people with an AFD nomination. Please do the research.  It was dead easy in this case.  Uncle G (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I did look for sources before nominating thank you very much. Overall the article seems to be filled with original research, and probably should be merged with other articles. And I do not have access to see what those sources you provided above would even have to offer. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, as per Uncle G. Sources clearly exist, they're just not in the article yet. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.