Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bikes May Use Full Lane


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn by nominator. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Bikes May Use Full Lane

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. Non-notable road sign, can be discussed in a list of regulatory signs.  Dough 48  72  02:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Then why are you nominating it for deletion instead of proposing a merge? I propose holding off on this discussion for a few days. The article was posted just today, by a respected editor who indicated in his first edit that he would expand it shortly. bd2412  T 02:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Conditional Merge - if article hasnt been expanded to a reasonable level within the duration of this AfD (1wk), it should be merged into a more general article - it by no means needs to be comprehensive by that point though. Creating editor has stated an intention to improve the article, we should allow some time for this to happen, the article is also very new. -- Nbound (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Individual road signs generally do not merit a full article, especially one like this one, that just consists of a standard pictogram with text. (An exception would be something like U.S. Route shield where we have official documentation of the design process and a history of revisions to the design.) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Lane control by cyclists is a notable topic - see Is it a cyclist's right to 'take the lane'?, for example. Relevant signage forms a natural part of the topic and so we should preserve this per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 08:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Vehicular cycling and include the image as an illustration there. Lane control is notable. The sign, in and of itself, is not. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My opinion about the proper treatment of this article is not changed by the expanded version (this revision, for reference). There are six references cited. The California MUTCD 2012 Edition is California's implementation of the standard that defines the sign; this is a primary source that is not by any means independent coverage. The San Diego Union-Tribune article is about the broader concept of lane control, and mentions the sign itself only by means of illustration; it does not discuss the sign specifically at any length. ThinkBicycling is a WordPress blog and is not a reliable source. Also not a reliable source is the website of a local cycling club. That leaves us with the CATSIP study and the Greater Greater Washington page. I am inclined to believe that the former should not be considered independent coverage, and the latter (which actually does discuss the sign at length, including a variant version used in some places due to bureaucratic issues) has a contributions policy that makes me question whether it can be considered a reliable source. The expansion here is laudable, and I'm typically an advocate for a fairly inclusive stance, but I still believe this is better covered in the context of the wider concept. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I can find more secondary news sources, I'm sure, if that's the issue. The sign is very important because of its growing effect in raising awareness of lane control - which prior to the sign was practically unknown.   This effect is reflected mostly in local news source coverage when the sign is first introduced to an area.  --B2C 18:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I also want to point out that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Many of the cited sources are lightweight, but the statements being supported, about the existence of these signs at various locations, are about as lightweight as source material can be.  So these lightweight sources are appropriate in this context.   While any one of the sources in isolation does not establish a notable topic, it seems to me that the number and broad distribution of the sources referencing the installation of these signs demonstrates sufficient interest for notability.  --B2C 17:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. As creator.  Sorry it's still a stub.  I realize now I should have developed it in my user space before putting it in article space.  Placement of the relatively new sign has generated discussion and coverage by reliable news sources all over the country.  It challenges the understanding most people have about bicycle traffic rights and safety, and it's changing that understanding.  People are encountering the sign and are wondering what it means.  It stands to reason that they will look to WP for an explanation.  It needs development to be sure, but the topic itself is clearly notable.
 * About 26,900 results (0.26 seconds)
 * Any help on expanding the article would be greatly appreciated, of course.  --B2C 17:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per Colonel Warden. The topic of lane control is notable, however this is an article on a sign. The sign itself is not notable. Move the graphic per Squeamish Ossifrage but delete the article.  Imzadi 1979  →   21:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What are the grounds for the claim that this particular sign is not notable? The article now cites a study that was done to look at the effectiveness of the sign.  More citations are coming but there is already enough in the article, much less outside of it, to demonstrate the notability of the sign itself.  In related news we also have Shared lane marking and Stop sign.  --B2C 00:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment As I'm improving the article I noticed usage in the references suggests the name more commonly used for this topic is Bicycles (not Bikes) May Use Full Lane, so I've moved the article accordingly, to Bicycles May Use Full Lane. --B2C 21:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. While an article on a sign initially would seem overly specific a topic, probably worthy information but not a stand alone article, one reading the references, it becomes apparent that this is not a mere ordinary old sign.  Of the current references, the 2nd and 4th are independent secondary sources, making direct, non-trivial comment/analysis on this specific sign itself.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Withdraw - The article has been expanded to the point where it has proven the notability of the sign. I realized that I jumped the gun too quickly in nominating this article for deletion.  Dough 48  72  18:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. And I'll get articles past the stub stage in my user space before I put them in article space.  --B2C 00:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close? Given the nom's withdrawal - can this Afd be speedy closed now?  --B2C 00:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply - There are good faith delete !votes so this shouldn't be speedily closed per WP:WITHDRAWN. -- Whpq (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2013 (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.