Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadgeek

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 and cleanup. --Tikiwont (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roadgeek

Page appears to be entirely original research, especially the Sites of interest section which makes up the bulk of the article. There are no sources given and I do not think that there will be enough (or any) independent third party sources found about the concept to justify an article under the the primary notability criteria. At present this article is non-notable roadcruft which I do not think it will be possible to improve upon. Guest9999 17:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Roadgeekdom is a popular enough hobby that I suspect coverage of it in reliable sources can be found. The sites of interest part should go, though, or be whittled down into a brief section of sourced examples of popular places for roadfans to go. Pinball22 17:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There actually is some newspaper coverage. See [1], [2], [3], etc. Zagalejo^^^ 18:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've actually heard of most of those "sites of interest" from third parties, but references are absolutely wanted, as the previous two commenters said. --Cubbi 20:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. —Scott5114 ↗ 01:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up. --Station Attendant 03:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up, per Scott5114 and Station Attendant. Concur keep per Pinball22 and Zagalejo statements. --Son 07:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. The list is actually too short, but every entry showing now is to a WP article and each of those I checked provided a notability rationale. Until some discussions of the participants and their organizations are added, the list is what makes this an article, rather than a definition. I suspect that the list will eventually be long enough to require its own page. There is at least one FA on a California road, the Ridge Route, which has introduced many to a contender for Primo Road Geek. I'll add that.--Hjal 09:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the list that in anyway links it to the term in question. It is 100% original research a reliable source needs to be found linking the locations in the list with the term - or group of people the term describes. Just showing that a road is interesting is not enough to assume a group of people is who like interesting road are interested in it A + B does not always = C [[Guest9999 10:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

I deleted the list as it is completely unsourced and - if the article is kept - the list should be based upon sources not the other way around. [[Guest9999 10:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Deleting the bulk of an article that you have nominated for deletion seems to violate process to me. Regardless of the AfD, the bulk deletion was improper. At least some of the linked articles clearly demonstrate that the listed roads have formal organizations dedicated to their history or maintenance and to enjoying their use for travel. Even if the specific people who wrote a book about a highway or formed an association of interchange admirers do not identify themselves as "Roadgeeks," that does not keep their existance from providing an example of the subject.---- Hjal (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - article's are often cleaned up during AfDs. There is one source in the entire section and that does not give any mention tof the term roadgeek or (as far as I can see) any people who might obsess about the area with out this information it is just synthesis. I am going to remove the section again as it is unsourced and the linking of the places to the group of people is original research. [[Guest9999 (talk) 11:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Actually looking at it, I think that the section on behaviour should also be removed, parts of it are completely unsourced and very likely to be original research, the rest is sourced to what appears to be a blog which does not qualify as a reliable source. [[Guest9999 (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Keep and clean up. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.