Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curb extension

Old discussion from Votes for deletion
Discussion concluded and article kept on June 18, 2004

Curb extension
Seems like a dicdef or at least an unimprovable stub. Its only linked to by a couple sites, perhaps merge with Traffic calming Keep -- siroxo 12:40, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, it is a real concept and can certainly be expanded. Who developed it and when? What are the disadvantages? What are some major cities that use them? - SimonP 13:08, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good short article, complete with good properly released photo apparently taken by a Wikipedian especially for this article . Excellent work in all that should be encouraged not deleted IMO. Agree with SimonP that it can be expanded. Not a dicdef, not an orphan, and even if merged (which I'd oppose but which doesn't need VfD) it would then be a good redirect, so I really don't see any grounds for this listing at all. Andrewa 17:39, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. The picture already appears in Traffic calming, which is a short article and could easily absorb the three sentences from this one. Nathan 21:02, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: If merged, it should become a redirect. Merge and delete is not a valid option, see deletion policy for why not. You're not the only one, this is the most consistently overlooked part of the whole policy. In any case, there seems no reason not to keep this as a redirect. Point taken about the photo, it was originally part of the traffic calming article, I hadn't noticed that. But no change to my vote, in fact the now expanded article is great IMO. Andrewa 01:30, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that policy. Is that OK with you? I guess I'm not the only one that disagrees with it either. Geez. Nathan 19:04, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've added a bunch of stuff. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 23:37, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good job on the expansion. --ssd 16:50, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)