Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedestrian 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 delete &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Pedestrian etiquette

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page has hardly any sources, and truly seems like original research. Topic being discussed is subjective, yet point of views abound in the article, as it reads and seems like a do's and don'ts list. SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Violates WP:POV and does not belong in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a guide. AmericanAir88(talk) 21:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR. Pedestrian safety currently redirects to Road traffic safety, but could be a standalone article. However, I doubt that anything useful could be salvaged from this one. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC).
 * Keep Per WP:BLUE, there's nothing original here. The topic is notable – see Instructing the Masses in How to Walk, for example.  The page just needs improvement per our editing policy and this is not done by deletion – see WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE; WP:NOTCLEANUP; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 09:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Compiling a semi-random collection of rules (no spitting? adults to the curb when a group of schoolchildren approacheth?) constitutes OR IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * comment There is surely a pertinent redirect?. As an article, this is wp:NUKE.TheLongTone (talk) 11:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Appears to violate WP:OR as has already been stated. Wikipedia is not a guide, nor should it be used as a random collection of subjectively defined common-sense courtesies which are also reported in a way that violates WP:POV. The idea that this entry may be okay because of WP:BLUE fails to recognize that something as obvious as the sky being blue is not equivalent to a random list of do's and don'ts.Grapefruit17 (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per above concerns of WP:OR, WP:POV and WP:NOTGUIDE. The title could potentially be a valid redirect, as suggested, but this article does not need to be retained in any form for that to occur.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename Distracted walking. Plenty of sources exist for this topic, especially with all the people texting while walking nowadays. Agree as per the above that the article should be covering a recognized phenomenon instead of reading like a how-to guide. StonyBrook (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - You are essentially arguing to create a completely different article, though. The current article is not about "Distracted Walking", and only one of the entries in it are even close to the topic.  Creating an article, on that topic and with those sources, would basically require renaming the article and completely rewriting it on the new topic from the ground up.  That would be no different than just creating a new article on that topic from scratch, which does not necessitate the keeping of the unsourced information from the present article.  Rorshacma (talk) 05:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete This is not the place to recreate a listicle with OR descriptions. Reywas92Talk 08:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - the article needs a complete rewrite and probably fails several Wikipedia guidelines in its current form, but I suspect there is some notability in the topic - compare Trail ethics for example. Bookscale (talk) 10:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Potentially notable topic, but the article in its current state needs to be WP:NUKED. –dlthewave ☎ 02:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking through the Google news search results I find a lot of coverage about this. Do different reliable sources disagree on things, or are there some things that they all agree upon that could be put and referenced in the article?   D r e a m Focus  00:22, 20 September 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.