Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pittsburgh Left


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 04:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Left

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

mundane topic, title implies the practice is unique to the Pittsburgh area (they were called Washington lefts when I lived in Washington DC, LA Left's when I lived in Los Angeles, and so on). There are some references but hardly the kind of significant coverage that notability guidelines demand. RadioFan (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment If it turns out that there are news sources about the Washington Left, L.A. Left, etc., then I can see where that would be a notable variation on normal driving rules. Of course, I can also see where a Wikipedia article of that nature could cause someone to turn into the path of an oncoming truck... Mandsford (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment We should see if we can make a general article out of it--I think it's probably general--it's certainly routine in NYC. There ought to be sources. I'm not worried about a Wikipedia article promoting bad driving. We're not a how-to manual, and it's enough that we say it is not actually legal. "Mundane" as a reason for deletion is altogether new to me. A general encyclopedia covers ordinary life.    DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 *  Merge  to Traffic. It's sourced, exists, and appears to be notable, but it's thin for its own article. If we had an article on similar practices in other cities, that would be a better target - but a general merge into Traffic, which already mentions "San Francisco Lefts" (three right turns, since SF roads are typically one-way), is ok for now. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Blargh29. Additional sources make it hard to argue that this doesn't stand on its own. Some cleanup is still necessary, and I'd like to have info on the practice from other cities, but this works for now. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources have been added. Article passes general notability guideline for stand-alone article. Needs some work, but should survive as its own article. --Blargh29 (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2010 (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.