Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duck crossing (2nd nomination)

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. ✗plicit 23:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duck crossing

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Beyond one road sign in the BBC News article from 2004, I can't actually find any evidence that a 'duck crossing' itself exists as a form of legal traffic crossing device other than the odd sign here and there   Kadzi   (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not significant enough to warrant a standalone article. I was going to say merge this to Deer crossing or similar, but as far as I can tell, there are no pages for wildlife crossing signs, with Wildlife crossing being an unrelated topic. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 18:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless significant coverage actually exists about duck crossings (or such crossings in general), this fails WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 14:56, 28 July 2022 (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.