Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic Roundabout (Colchester)

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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Roundabout (Colchester)

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

Challenged prod. Unreferenced since 2011. GDallimore (Talk) 23:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 5. Snotbot t • c » 00:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's plenty of sources out there:

Colchester: a history
Capacity Measurements on Experimental Roundabouts Design at Colchester
The Commercial Motor - volume 135
Surveyor - volume 141
TRRL Laboratory Report - issues 674-687

AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not add some of these to the article then? Especially as none of them appear to be online and you seem to be the person with access to them... GDallimore (Talk) 12:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't use the magic word. If you need a more accessible account, try the entertaining version of Richard Bartle. Warden (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to an article on manners after your original comment is just the worst form of hypocrisy. Go look at yourself in the mirror then go do something useful. GDallimore (Talk) 17:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original comment? I do not understand what you mean. I tend to be brusque and so try to mind my Ps and Qs. My nom-de-plume was first used by Churchill who famously said, "...it costs nothing to be polite." Warden (talk) 10:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per User:Colonel Warden -

Why not add some of these to the article then? - Be WP:BOLD ~~& do it your bloody self! ... It's COMMON SENSE.~~ -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you unable to read full paragraphs? As I made clear: I do not have access to these sources so how can I add them? GDallimore (Talk) 17:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you're unable to do a simple Google search then ......?, It's not rocket science to dig deep & find the info needed!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Colonel Warden. Thryduulf (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added the Colchester:a history source, but was unable to get snippets from the other sources mentioned above by Warden (talk · contribs). In any case, this particular road structure appears to fulfill WP:GNG. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY; sources have been quoted herein and also added to the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons above (and use WP:SNOW) Fbryce (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2013 (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.