Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudofreeway


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Joyous! | Talk 16:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Pseudofreeway
This article seems to be some what notable, however, I find that this information should be merged to the main article (i.e. freeway) as it does not seem to stand alone very well, and could be mentioned in a generally larger article.OMEN 19:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Addendum, if the article is to stand alone, I think a general picture or cleanup is necessary (not to insult the author, but the article topic is very difficult to grasp). OMEN 19:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Is this a known technical term? If so, it should be verifiable through cited sources. But at first glance (including some quick Google searching) I'm concerned that this is original research. Glad to see new editors taking a swing at things, though. --William Pietri 20:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete original research. I get exactly one Ghit and it's entirely unrelated to this article.  If the author's got any references or citations, you should have included them in the article already.  Tychocat 20:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete original research. --Nick Y. 20:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete neologism and original research. SM247 My Talk  01:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to freeway. Looks like Nintendude has a new name - Paul from Michigan. --SPUI (T - C) 10:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I am the initiator of this article, so I will not vote on deletion. The term is a neologism -- but one that should be comprehensible. We all know what pseudo means as a prefix, and we all know what a freeway is. If it is a neologism, it isn't that much of one. If someone has a better term, the feel free to re-name the article pending any effort to delete it.

The concept seems valid enough; any highway that despite having perils that cause it to fall far short of the normal expectations of a freeway although deceiving motorists into driving at freeway speeds. The pseudofreeway, as I see it, is a highway different from the "Blood Alley" infamous from the early days of motoring: the twisting mountain road or a mountain road with steep grades that push braking capacity -- especially that of trucks -- past their limits, the three-lane highway with the middle 'suicide lane', the rural highway with 90-degree turns and narrow bridges and no shoulder.

Does it need some re-writing? Of course. Most new articles need significant re-writing to raise them to the quality appropriate for well-established articles.

So go ahead and reorganize the article as you see fit. --Paul from Michigan 17:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're not in fact Nintendude (assuming good faith and all...), please read No original research. --SPUI (T - C) 21:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * To be more explicit, "pseudofreeway" is something an encyclopedia would cover once it has been researched and described by experts in the field. So if transportation researchers use it as a term of art, or you have DOT documents talking about pseudofreeways, then we could cover it on Wikipedia. But if the concept is yours personally or limited to a relatively small number of people then the material should find a home elsewhere on the web. --William Pietri 01:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as original research. --William Pietri 01:13, 2 July 2006 (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.