Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Road signs in Sweden


 * 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 no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 01:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Road signs in Sweden
Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. And what is a .svg format? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Instead of delete, transwiki this somewhere. It probably took an awful lot of time uploading all those!  Zoe, to answer your question: see SVG. No vote --Perfecto  04:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Its already at Road signs of Sweden -- Astrokey44 |talk 12:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There's similar article Road signs in the Republic of Ireland. I see some use but I don't know how much maintainable such articles are. No vote from me. Pavel Vozenilek 06:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: if voted to keep, image names used in both this article and Ireland need to be changed to something meaningful and predictable. Pavel Vozenilek 06:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge. Agreed, Wikipedia is not a repository, but if the Ireland article was allowed to stay, maybe it and Sweden can be combined into a single Road Signs article, combined with other nations MyrHerder 11:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete is a cut and paste of Road signs of Sweden that had been translated. -- Astrokey44 |talk 12:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; to early to vote this article of. I think it's encyclopedic to show roadsigns in a country, also the article is a stub for the moment. → Aza Toth 12:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, needs more explanatory text, but is potentially informative. dml 15:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perhaps many of these signs conform to a European standard, and those might be better merged in some central article.  Still, any article on this sort of topic practically begs to be profusely illustrated.  Smerdis of Tlön 17:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. More of an image gallery than an article, and I didn't really see anything there unique to Sweden. Are we going to have a nearly identical article for every nation? An article on road signs with a section for those few that are unique to whatever country would be a much better idea (though still excessively image-gallery-like). -R. fiend 21:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete with great sadness. The author has spent an age uploading images in order, apparently, to duplicate something which is linked at the bottom.  Copyright status on the images?  Remove the links and discuss the differneces between Swedish and other European signs and I will change my vote. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 23:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The images was uploaded using a uploader-bot, the images are PD, I think he who uploaded them did it to include it to the swedish wikipedia, I thought there would be usefull to have it here as well, I think it's encyclopedic to describe them. I can understand thet you think that swedish roadmarks doesn't deserve an own article, the problem at the moment is that all road-related articles needs a major overhaul (mixed generic with us-specific or ireland-specific content etc...). The main difference with swedish road-marks and the most of the european, is that the swedish have yellow background instead of white. Also I don't know how it is in other countries, but in sweden road-marks are heavly regulated in the law, so there are no regional differences of marks. → Aza Toth 00:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, if the pics are PD, take to Commons. When transportation of Sweden starts getting subarticles, some logical spot to use these pics can be found. Tuf-Kat 01:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep (but needs some cleanup). I can see nothing wrong with this article. WP:NOT can be interpreted too widely. If a collection of images itself has some encyclopedic point, as it does here, then WP:NOT doesn't need to be invoked. I would be happy to see articles like this for all jurisdictions, if some patient soul wishes to write them. AndyJones 15:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I found this article extremely interesting. The WP:NOT directive isn't really relevant here: we're not talking about a person who uploaded their photos from vacation. Bratsch  e talk 16:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, belongs on commons. Stifle 23:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you explain why? Is common an encyclopedia, or do you think there is no excyclopedic value in the signs? → Aza Toth 23:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per dml and Smerdis. Arbustoo 01:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:NOT currently reads "Collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles." This has text. (For those citing WP:NOT please see Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/galleries for an ongoing discussion of a proposal to modify the WP:NOT as it pertains to galleries.) Dsmdgold 15:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, collection of notable and encylopedic road signs, might be best to split into separate article for each one. Kappa 18:33, 16 February 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.