Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Escalator etiquette


 * 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 sources to support notability as a distinct subject. RL0919 (talk) 07:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Escalator etiquette

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has a massive original research problem with it, and seems like a to-do guide for getting on the escalator. WP is not a guide, but this article is. The sources cited seem out of place as well. The lead is subpar, and does not reason too much as to why the topic is important. KingofGangsters (talk) 06:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is not original; instead it is quite notable as there are numerous sources which discuss and detail it; here's an example. WP:GUIDE is not a policy page and any issues of that sort are a matter of style, corrected by rewriting rather than deletion. Likewise if the lead seems subpar, this is best addressed by ordinary editing and improvement not by deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Much to my surprise, this not-so-burning issue has received scrutiny from the BBC, the Washington Post, the Toronto Star, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Hyperbolick (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason why you want this article to be kept?KingofGangsters (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge to Escalator. There's a paragraph there, and a paragraph here, and it seems to me that in the end what there is would still be a paragraph. There's no evidence this needs to be split out into its own article. Mangoe (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to Escalator. I agree with Mangoe that the topic does not warrant its own article and would fit better in the article on escalators. Capt. Milokan (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep There are a surprising number of good sources on this topic, both already included in the article as well as being presented by Clarityfiend above. I was originally going to agree with the above suggestions of merging to the appropriate section of the Escalator article, however, taking a look over there shows that article is already pretty lengthy.  With that in mind, as well as the good amount of sources, having this topic as its own article seems like a reasonable WP:SPLIT.  Rorshacma (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to Escalator. That a half-page mention in a guide to London justifies a separate article for this concept is ridiculous. The main article can cover it just fine with little added length even with the new link; it is 25k characters of prose which is not too big to justify a split. Reywas92Talk 20:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. People who hog the escalator is my bête noire and I'm not alone. See toilet paper orientation. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. This article is great, and there's still a lot that could be written about the subject. Shouldn't just be a section in another article. Erik Humphrey (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2019 (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.