Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of traffic signs in English-speaking countries


 * 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 no consensus. There's a consensus in favor of keeping some type of list of traffic signs beyond the per-country ones, though no consensus that "English-speaking" is the best way to group countries together. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Comparison of traffic signs in English-speaking countries

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not enough variation for the topic to be helpful or notable. Also, inclusion of countries like Malaysia and the Philippines is dubious, at the very least. ‡ ᕮl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ  03:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, Also, at least one of those signs for the UK don't exist here. -Roxy the dog. bark 07:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I have found this page very useful in the past, and although there may be arguments to be had about countries which should be included, I do not believe it is unencyclopedic. The nomination states that there is not enough variation, but that is precisely the point - to show readers the subtle differences between each country on each sign. I'm sure notability can be easily verified by taking a quick look around the Internet; road signage is hardly a minor topic.  Rcsprinter123    (indicate)  11:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 *  leaning delete I don't see what English-speaking has to do with this, given that (after all) these are for the most part graphic images where language is irrelevant— that's the point behind them. We do have a European comparison which makes more sense due to the geographic commonality, but I don't see why comparing the US to the UK is any more apropos than comparing the US to Germany. Mangoe (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the more I look at this the more I think that the commonality of English is irrelevant. One can immediately see that most of the differences arise from (a) the US tending to retain signs in words as opposed to pictures, and (b) the Europeans and East Asians having different standards bodies. Eliminate (a), and English becomes almost entirely irrelevant. Mangoe (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Seems like WP:OR for me, unless somebody can dig up a study or two on the topic. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm seriously avoiding looking at this article anymore because it is completely uncited and so I don't trust it.  The notability argument as stated is profoundly weak (although it could be improved), since roads are topics of enormous interest in Western civilization, this topic attracts the attention of drivers, and notability is understood as those topics for which evidence exists that they have attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, or at a minimum merge to Traffic sign main article. The graphical comparison is interesting, and probably provides good illustration to some statements which probably have been made in sources (e.g. it has probably been said somewhere that for the most part, traffic signs are similar in English-speaking countries). Seriously there must exist U.N. treaties or deliberations of international bodies, and there must be academic/engineering studies about this kind of stuff, though I personally am not interested enough to seek it out at university libraries or wherever.  This is stuff which could totally be within the main Traffic sign article, but has in effect been split out.  It is valid material, therefore, and it is an editorial matter at the main article about whether this is split out or not.  If the main article is long, it is okay to split out.  It certainly would be nice/preferred for it to include some sourced discussion of the issue(s) and references about the accuracy of the signs themselves.  At a minimum the material should be preserved by alternatives to deletion such as redirecting. -- do  ncr  am  21:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment i must say that as a UK resident, i have never seen 4 of the signs listed here (they do exist, they are just really rare). The relevance of English speaking countries is peculiar to say the least. all British signage is standarised with a set of pictographs and the same font (new transport). it might be more productive to compare the design methods of national signage systems rather than this. see: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/58170307ed915d61c5000000/the-highway-code-traffic-signs.pdf and note this article needs to be much longer. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - while interesting, in a factual junkie way like most of us here are, this is not very useful. I can't think of a use case that someone would say for example "I need to see the difference in yield signs between the US and Jamaica", and that's regardless of the fact that most of the items are identical. An article of road signs of a single country would be more useful. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  00:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Because WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IAR.  Yeah, I know, that's not a very good argument, but sometimes you just gotta go with your gut.  -- RoySmith (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. This may not be useful for road travelers crossing from one region to the next, but surely it is of aesthetic interest to people who want to see how countries that ostensibly share a language use that language on their traffic signage. (I am disappointed, however, that the Canadian stop sign doesn't say, "Sorry to bother you, but please come to a STOP, eh?"). bd2412  T 02:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per RoySmith. Even a stickler to the rules like me thinks such articles should be kept because they are extremely interesting and useful and Wikipedia would be worse off by deleting it. I'm certain someone has already discussed the (subtle) differences between such roadsigns before Wikipedia was invented and that it is thus not OR because it contains no new ideas. I also think comparing English-speaking countries is a good idea because they are likely all being influenced due to the shared language. Regards  So Why  07:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete since a division of traffic signs by national language is a rather random denominator, as opposed to geographical lines. Just think if we had to choose between Comparison of traffic signs in Spanish-speaking countries and Comparison of traffic signs in Latin-American countries. The first one would be with Spain, but without Brazil, which is less logical than the second one. And the same goes in the case of the nominated article. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 07:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If we had to choose? We don't - we have many instances where different articles present different organizations of information in the same field. We absolutely could have both Comparison of traffic signs in Spanish-speaking countries and Comparison of traffic signs in Latin-American countries, with one being useful to travelers who may be wending through Latin America, and another useful to linguists studying the difference in wording across the language, and with each pointing to the other in the "See also" section. bd2412  T 12:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a notable topic. Are there any sources comparing traffic signs in English-speaking countries in detail? Additionally regarding the table, if completed there would be 100+ road signs for each of 54+ countries. With many entries lacking equivalents in certain jurisdictions the final table size would be so large as to be practically unuseful and therefore unencyclopedic.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: while unconventional, I don't see any policies or guidelines this article violates. It offers no advice on these symbols, so it doesn't fail WP:NOTMANUAL.  At the end of the day Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias are meant to provide interesting information.  This information is both useful and interesting and therefore encyclopedic.  It doesn't fail WP:GNG and it seems to pass WP:NOPAGE which are the classic policies/guidelines applied in AfDs like this one.    Dr Strauss   talk   16:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete While appreciating the effort and good faith, I believe these articles should probably remain based on continental connections, like Comparison of European road signs. Considering the Schengen Agreement and open borders, that article actually serves a educational purpose for cross-continental drivers. We can make similar tables to compare signs in the Americas, Asia, and Africa as well. More distant and subjective connections such as a bunch of countries sharing a language, I see as stretching pretty thin.  Fry1989 eh? 01:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Doesn't appear to violate any policy and is a useful take on the subject. might need a little cleanup but not enough to warrant deletion. Gateman1997 (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Violating core content policies is a reason for deletion. For WP:V, see WP:DEL7.  As stated at WP:Deletion policy, "If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD."  Unscintillating (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no WP:V issue here, the signs are correct according to governmental sources. A Guy into Books (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you don't agree that zero sources "severely fails the WP:Verifiability policy", then you don't need any sources at all in an article to consider it verifiable. As per WP:V, "...any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."  So 100% of the material in this article is lacking inline citations and is subject to removal.  There is no point to saving an article that requires a 100% rewrite.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:DEL7 only allows deletion if sources can't be found, not if they clearly exist but are not yet added (see also WP:PRESERVE). A lack of inline citations is not a reason for deletion if the addition of inline citations is clearly possible. Regards  So Why  09:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I see your point in DEL7, which has always been a bit of a puzzle to me, but you are dismissing both the quote I provided from WP:Deletion policy and the quote I provided from WP:BURDEN. And I would specifically disagree that those sources have been found, because in point of fact they have not been found.  We knew all along in this AfD that most of those signs would be sourceable.  The problem is that if there are errors they will mislead readers.  The means to make this material verifiable is in-line citations, and this requires a 100% rewrite of the article.  Without verifiability, the article is worthless.  Unlike notability issues, which require no changes to the article content, content issues require immediate attention at AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So if you agree that sources can be found, how does WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM not apply? Also, how is it a 100% rewrite to just add sources without removing anything? Regards  So Why  16:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The way to remove any signs that are not sourceable is to add citations to 100% of the sourceable signs. Since AfD is not cleanup, perhaps you are implying that we save this article for the table structure, leave it to other editors to perhaps apply WP:BURDEN to remove all of the pictures, and hope that someone will research it someday?  Unscintillating (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as Dr. Strauss states Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the visual representation should be useful for readers, albeit uninteresting. Burroughs&#39;10 (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Question - Is there a reason not to have a single comparison of traffic signs that covers every country. It would be cumbersome, but if too much so it may be easier to split (once combined) into, say, types of signs rather than basing it on countries, continents, or languages. It would make for an impossible table format, but since sortability isn't really an issue, there's not really a big reason for the table aside from snappy presentation. Also, this seems like a pretty good use for a Commons gallery (though don't construe this comment as a !vote to transwiki). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Look in any encyclopedia or perhaps even your state driver's manual, and there will probably be a comparison of traffic signs. The article is a list, and is relevant to the project as a list. If it were some lame essay I would !vote delete but it isn't. L3X1 (distænt write)  16:10, 10 September 2017 (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.