Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramp Meter Effectiveness


 * 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. - Bobet 13:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ramp Meter Effectiveness
Unsourced POV essay. It even has a conclusion at the end. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, but without predjudice of recreation, as it is possible that the ariticle title could one day be encyclopaedic. Batmanand | Talk 13:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That'd probably be Ramp meter, which is in dire need of cleanup but salvagable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That is true. Still delete, though; the prejudice thing is irrelevant to the outcome of the AfD. Batmanand | Talk 15:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to work with you on thiis. To me, this article is completely fact based. Are you able to point to anything which is not? Currently, the only sources of ramp metering information are from parties with a vested interest in saying they work. There is a need for an independent source. I don't believe the article contains conclusion(s), only facts. Where do you see a conclusion? Please help me to construct a correct article rather than punitively depriving people the opportunity to see a valid presentation of facts. Or maybe as you suggest it could all be presented under ramp meters. I would appreciate any guidance you could give. Thank you.--Ristrockett 17:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the place for writing up the primary reseach that one has done into a topic. The place for that is an appropriate academic journal.  Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source.  See our No original research policy.  If you want to provide "independent" primary source material about something, Wikipedia is not the place.  Please have your research published in a peer-reviewed journal or a book.  Uncle G 16:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Ramp meter. I don't see why two separate articles are needed. -- Whpq 19:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. Copying it to Ramp meter would not make it less so. Sandstein 04:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Ramp meter and clean-up. The effectiveness of ramp metering under discussion, especially the level of benefits and I think that can be part of the article. I think it is currently original research overall and is not NPOV yet, but some of the sections contain good material that can be salvaged. Kabba3112 08:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Holy blatant OR Essay Batman! I don't know if there is anything worth merging. The whole essay is written from the slant of evaluating the effectiveness, which is lavishly POV. 205.157.110.11 09:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I am new to Wikipedia and was not aware of the rules. While, of necessity, my contributions are original analysis of sourced data in some sections, I realize that as stated above by Uncle G, the place for this work is elsewhere. Thanks for the lessons.--Ristrockett 04:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing primary research. An encyclopaedia is nothing without the people who did and do the original research in the first place.  (When you have your article peer reviewed, fact checked, and published by a reliable source, so that it becomes part of the corpus of human knowledge, we can use it as the basis for expanding ramp meter.)  It is simply that here isn't the place to record it.  Uncle G 09:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete on the essay and original research grounds. Statements such as "none can defend when presented with the conceptual and factual elements of my assertions" by the author on the Talk page are an especial red flag for me with material like this.  The appearance of two other new accounts to carry on a dialog on this specialized topic is also curious. - David Oberst 10:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research. --TheM62Manchester 10:45, 26 August 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.