Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lane sharing

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. Consensus is to Keep.

I don't know why this many editors showed to discuss an article on Lane sharing but you're welcome to participate in other AFDs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lane sharing

[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)

Has been tagged as uncited for over a decade Chidgk1 (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://canadamotoguide.com/2020/02/10/lane-sharing-why-its-great-and-where-were-at/ seems to imply it is the same as Lane splitting Chidgk1 (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article being unsourced is not in and of itself a rationale for deletion, if the topic is notable. Consider the precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detour where a similar article was kept. This is in fact a distinct subject from Lane splitting. See [1] which says "Advocates say the new law isn’t the same as lane splitting, which allows a motorcycle rider to go between rows of cars at regular speeds." Other sources can be found at [2] [3] [4]. Alternatively, Shared lane marking could be merged with this article, or vice versa. What's here needs to be rewritten but the subject is notable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consider also [5] [6] [7] [8]. There is some confusion in sources about naming but it's clear there is a distinct topic here independent of lane splitting. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Trainsandotherthings. Notable topic and AfD is not cleanup. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An unsourced article does not mean that it should be deleted. It should be kept as the topic is meaningful. It can be improved by adding sources and cleaning up the article, but it should not be deleted. Timothytyy (talk) 02:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Questıon How long can an article remain completely unsourced before that becomes a reason for deletion? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Read what I said above. That's not a reason for deletion at all, unless sources cannot be found which show notability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think an article being tagged for a month as having no sources should be a reason for deletion, let alone over 10 years! Chidgk1 (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can think however you'd like. I'm telling you what policy says. You're welcome to post at the village pump if you think it should be changed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#I propose that an article being tagged for over a decade as as completely uncited should be a reason for deletion Chidgk1 (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a distinct topic, and I haven't seen any proposal to merge it elsewhere.—Anita5192 (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 19:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I think we have conclusively established that sources exist that mention the topic… my question is: Do these sources discuss the topic in ways that properly establish its NOTABILITY, or do they merely establish its existence? Blueboar (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Happy to keep. Whilst looking for sources I discovered a large number of reliable sources saying things like Lane splitting is when motorcycle riders drive between two lanes of traffic, traveling in the same direction, which is either stopped or moving at a slow speed. Lane splitting is also referred to as “lane sharing.”[9]. An argument could be made to combine splitting, filtering and sharing into a single page. Ironically the best name that I can think of for such a page is Lane sharing which would talk of all the different ways that traffic can share a lane. Gusfriend (talk) 23:02, 29 October 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.