Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lane sharing (2nd nomination)


 * 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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Garuda3 (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Lane sharing
AfDs for this article:


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

The article has no cites which show that the subject is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 12:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per Articles for deletion/Lane sharing which literally closed 12 days ago. This is a waste of our time, and this is a POINTy nomination, considering you also started the previous AfD. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also note that Chidgk1 deleted nearly the entire text of the article before making this nomination, which is deceptive. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Shame on you for not properly checking the edit history before throwing personal attacks towards Chidgk1. The Banner  talk 16:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the one who deleted the whole article and is now tagbombing it instead of trying to improve it. Glad you could join us.Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And yes, I restored the maintenance template that you removed. The Banner  talk 16:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I resolved the issue. The article has sources that cite examples in Poland, Australia, and Switzerland. The tag is no longer valid, which is why I removed it after addressing the issue. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep/procedural keep nothing has changed since your last AFD nomination of this article just less than a month ago (which I was not involved in). The fact that two editors decided to remove content instead of using sources found in the last AFD isn't a basis for deletion. Looking in ebsco and ProQuest, that didn't seem to have been found in the last AFD:
 * CHUNCHU, M.; KUZHIYAMKUNNATH, B. B. "Analysis of the effect of two-wheeler lane-sharing behavior on macroscopic traffic flow modeling". Transport, v. 29, n. 2, p. 146–153, 2014. DOI 10.3846/16484142.2014.928788. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=96862201&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 10 nov. 2022.
 * "Assessment of Lane-Sharing Manoeuvrability and Risk Exposure Effect on Motorcycling in Nigeria", https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsoai&AN=edsoai.on1080939032&site=eds-live&scope=site
 * "Oregon studies motorcycle lane-sharing". Source: Public Roads. 2010, Vol. 74, Issue 2, pages. 2. ,
 * "FOR CALIF. MARINES, MOTORCYCLE LANE SHARING DISCOURAGED." States News Service, 7 Jan. 2011. Gale Academic OneFile, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A246020883/AONE?u=wikipedia&sid=ebsco&xid=0e137215. Accessed 10 Nov. 2022.
 * GINGERELLI, DAIN. 2013. “Lane Sharing, California Style.” American Iron Magazine, June, 8. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f6h&AN=87289346&site=eds-live&scope=site.
 * Skynxnex (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I have rebuilt the article with three sources discussing lane sharing. Shame on you, Chidgk1, for nominating this for deletion a second time despite knowing sources existed and were freely available. I lean more towards a "deletionist" perspective at AfD, but even I am appalled at your behavior here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per criteria 2.c: The nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption and, since questionable motivations on the part of the nominator do not have a direct bearing on the validity of the nomination, no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion or redirection as an outcome of the discussion. For example: making nominations of the same page with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion. Jumpytoo Talk 19:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy procedural close and trout. The last AfD just closed.  Immediately running another one is just plain disruptive.  Not to mention that there's already a discussion going on at Talk:Lane sharing.  -- RoySmith (talk) 21:31, 10 November 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.