Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traffic guard


 * 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. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Traffic guard

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Totally unreferenced WP:OR, and tagged as such for 8 years. This is basically an overgrown dictdef. I can't find any WP:SECONDARY sources that talk about this in a significant way. I'd be happy turning this into a redirect, but I can't find any appropriate place to redirect it to. Maybe w:wikt:flagger? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is obviously going to be kept, so saving some time and withdrawing my nomination. I hope that some of the people who went and found sources actually use them to fix up the article, which is still 100% unsourced.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - in Australia these are called "traffic controllers" (an altname already listed in the lede) and as a profession the subject has received quite a bit of coverage, primarily because of gender hiring preferences:, , , , .  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 14:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - probably should make that clear.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per WP:SOURCESEXIST. In the US these people are almost always called "flaggers" and any documentation, reporting or regulations would report them as such. They show up in OSHA and State regulations with in depth coverage of how they're supposed to perform their duties. If you do a WP:BEFORE with "flagger" or "traffic controller" then you'll find plenty of sources. The article should not have remained unsourced for so long but it shouldn't be difficult to improve through editing. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:SOURCESEXIST is one of the WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The two documents you linked to are WP:PRIMARY sources, of which plenty exist.  The problem is finding significant coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've provided a small sample of the available secondary sources above. I suspect Qwaiiplayer was simply pointing out that there are also technical primary sources available to verify some of the article content. Unless I've misunderstood both comments here...?  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, my intent was to point out that there are plenty of sources under other names as pointed out below. Jumpytoo's scholar search is good. The UK terms brought up by Andrew are less common but I found one scholarly source that uses that term. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of sources, here's three that I picked randomly from a Google Scholar search:
 * Jumpytoo Talk 06:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Jumpytoo Talk 06:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Jumpytoo Talk 06:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Jumpytoo Talk 06:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep In the UK, these might be known as a traffic marshal, banksman or slinger. The key point of WP:DICDEF is not that we should delete stubs but that "in Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by".  Also, per WP:V, sources are only required for quotations and controversial facts.  See WP:CAPTAINOBVIOUS. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep evidently there are sources that discuss this profession whether under the name "traffic guard" or under a different name. NemesisAT (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep There is proof that reliable sources are available. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 02:39, 19 September 2021 (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.