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 no consensus. Recommend something be done with this article swiftly. I can't enforce the requested time restriction on a renomination, but the article in its present form/location appears to have legitimate concerns that are unlikely to fade away. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

California Vehicle Code - Bicycle Relevant Sections[edit]

California Vehicle Code - Bicycle Relevant Sections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Should be moved to Wikisource. My conversations with the editor who is bringing in huge quotes from the state traffic code are not encouraging. I urged him to make these edits to Wikisource, but he is unwilling to do so. I know there is an underconstruction tag on the page, but continuation of the construction does not seem to indicate this can be resolved. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am having trouble understanding what this is about. I found this article about sections of the California vehicle code that relate to bicycling a few days ago. It was marked as a stub, so I started to expand it. This is the stub condition it was in when I started. Note that it fully quoted CVC 21202, but did not discuss much about other relevant sections yet. Since the topic was sections of the vehicle code, I chose to quote the relevant part of the code that each section of the article was discussing. Frankly, I'm not sure how else this article could be written. But I'm open to suggestions. Why this should be move to Wikisource is beyond me. AFAIK, wikisource is not the place to write about sources, it's just a place to keep sources. Does wikisource even have articles at all? I can't find any. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is full of interpretation (rather pointy, and I suspect far from authoritative) of a legal document. That is not the purpose of an encyclopaedia. An article on the vehicle code should deal with its function, publication, history and possibly an overview of the sections contained therein. And that's it. It is not a users' guide, nor an advice sheet for cyclists. Constant wikilinks back to the same article are inappropriate, as are such lengthy quotes. Kevin McE (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response. I've shortened all of the lengthy quotes down to only the very salient (to bicycling) parts. I've left CVC 21202 and 21208 fully intact since the details in them are so critical. Is that satisfactory?
The "interpretations" are fairly well sourced, especially for an article that is marked as still being under construction. Bicycling law specialists like Alan Wachtel and Bob Mionske, the main sources in the article, are among the few authoritative people on the issue of bicycling and the law (you can google for both, if that's really an issue). If there are any particular "interpretations" or claims that you believe are problematic, please identify them.
If you think any of it reads like a user's guide or advice sheet for bicyclists, please identify the problematic sections and I'll be happy to remove advisory language, etc.
This is an ideal topic to cover in Wikipedia because there is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding about it in the general public, but not among authoritative sources and specialists in the field. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response. I resent the implication that the interpretations are without citations, considering how hard I've worked to make sure everything is properly sourced (did you even notice?), not to mention that the article is still tagged "under construction", and that lack of some citations is hardly a reason to delete an article. By that standard over 90% of WP articles should be deleted.
Whether racing or drafting bicycles in California is legal is a perfectly legitimate question, and a reasonable issue for a general encyclopedia to address. If someone wants to know the answer to that question, Wikipedia would be more useful if it answered it than if it didn't. When all the authoritative sources agree both are legal, and none say it is not, it is appropriate for the article about bicycle law in California to state that. There is certainly nothing controversial about it - it's just not a well-known fact. I just added one more source for it, FWIW. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
* It's a perfectly legitimate question. But, an encyclopaedia should not address it. As far as Wikipedia in particular, refer WP:NOT. This is clearly not a legal advice site. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the only even potentially relevant section from WP:NOT is this one:

Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions, advice (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain how-tos. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides and recipes.[5] If you are interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at wikiHow or our sister project Wikibooks.

The article does not, or at least should not, read as a how-to style manual of legal advice. If you think it does, please identify where and we can fix it. But such an easily fixed infraction hardly justifies deletion of the entire article. That this article would not belong in WikiHow or Wikibooks further illustrates my point. The topic of this article is to simply cover what reliable authoritative sources say the law in California relevant to bicycling is. It's pure encyclopedic information. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, answering the question of whether bicycle racing or drafting is legal is not giving legal advice. Legal advice involves suggesting what one should do in a given legal situation. Very different. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plea to admin - First, thank you in advance for giving this decision about an important and appropriate article the careful consideration it deserves.

I hereby plea to whatever admin makes the ultimate decision here to consider that the reasons cited in each of the Delete votes above are, ironically, reasons to Keep the article. This is because the topic of this article -- the legal rights of bicyclists -- is fraught with misunderstanding and confusion in the public at large (including, apparently, for those voting above), even though there is little if any confusion or disagreement among those who are authorities on the topic (like bicycle law attorney Bob Mionske, author of Bicycling & the Law, a major source in this article). That's what makes this article an ideal candidate for inclusion in Wikipedia, where it has been since 2004. Please consider:

  1. This is not a new article, it is almost five years old.
  2. The original objection behind this nomination was that the article be moved to Wikisource. That makes no sense. Wikisource is for, well, sources, not articles on topics like bicycling and the law. However, in hopes of addressing this concern, I have pared down some of the longer quotes of the law in the article so that only the very relevant parts of each section are displayed, rather than the entire section in each case.
  3. The reason cited by the first vote for deletion was almost the exact opposite. It was that the article was "full of interpretation". Well, yeah, but interpretation cited through reliable authoritative sources much better than the average WP article, IMHO. Even if that was an issue, lack of citations is grounds for noting that sourcing needs to be improved in the article, not that the article should be deleted.
  4. Both votes for deletion cite or refer to WP:NOT, particularly the "Wikipedia is not a user's guide" section. Yet this article is not a manual nor does it provide legal advice. It provides facts and information about what the law in California is with respect to bicyclists, and what authoritative sources say it means.
  5. The second vote cites WP:OR which illustrates how unfamiliar even cyclists are with the topic of bicycling and the law. So unfamiliar that even sourced facts and information appear to be original research to them... Wikipedia is the ideal place for such an article - so the controversial information can be properly vetted in the public and open forum that Wikipedia is.
  6. The article has been tagged as being within the scope of two Wikipedia projects: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cycling and Wikipedia:WikiProject_California.
  7. The article is still under construction (and was tagged accordingly a week or so ago). See the TODO list on the talk page. Feel free to add to it with anything that you think will improve the article.
  8. Finally, if people have objections to content in an article, shouldn't they first raise those objections on the article's talk page, and allow editors to work them out, before simply nominating the entire article for deletion? In the five years that this article has existed, there has been no discussion about its content, except that it was of "stub quality". Both projects had it rated as "stub class", so a few weeks ago I started working on improving it, and as a result it was nominated for deletion.

Thank you again. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dbratland, you seem to be suggesting, without basis, that the article in question is a fringe theory, presenting new ideas, "countering systemic bias in institutions such as academia", and/or is an effort to "right a great wrong". What are you talking about? What is your evidence for any of this?
I have read over a dozen books on bicycling and they all say the same thing about the law. The fact that the public in general has not read these books and is generally not aware of what the law is does not make it a new or fringe theory.
If this article was a how-to manual or provided legal advice, then the WP:NOT objection would apply. But the article is neither.
Wikipedia is the place to provide facts and information, including interpretations made by reliable authoritative sources in the given topic area. The references in the article form the basis for my claim that that is exactly what this article is. What is the basis for your claim that it is not?
You represent yet another person who perceives what authoritative sources on the topic agree, and have always agreed, is fact, to be "presenting new ideas" (never mind that writers writing books that address bicycling and the law have for decades been reflecting these "new ideas", consistently, without argument). --Born2cycle (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: Wikipedia is not the place for "promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs... You might think that it is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that’s not the case." I don't think I can make it any more clear than that. The public at large, as well as the police and the courts, are "wrong" and you are using WP to bring them The Truth. It's hard not to fall into that trap if you're editing articles on topics you feel that way about.--Dbratland (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might be hard not to fall into that trap, but that doesn't mean I have. Please, speak for yourself. The police and courts are wrong? What does this have to do with the article? Did you even read the article that is being discussed here? If your comments have nothing to do with the content/quality/appropriateness of the article (rather than me), I suggest they do not belong here. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with SpacemanSpiff above ... this article doesn't look at all like a good encyclopedic article. Citing the CA code in lane splitting would be sufficient to convey its encyclopedic importance. -- Brianhe (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't "look at all like a good encyclopedic article"? So now we're deciding whether to delete articles based on how they look? What kind of reason is that? And what does this article have to do with lane splitting? The legality of lane splitting is only peripherally related to the topic of this article, and it's not even mentioned in the article, nor even on the todo list for the article. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As mentioned above: "An article on the vehicle code should deal with its function, publication, history and possibly an overview of the sections contained therein." (emphasis mine). Born2cycle did his best to make the article better, and he sourced it better than most Wikipedia articles. I agree with Born2cycle that this is no candidate for wikisource. But currently, the article is also no candidate for Wikipedia. It is too much focussed on the details of the law, the big overview is missing. The article now is beyond repair, to get a decent article it would be best to start with nothing and build it up with "function, publication, history and possibly an overview of the sections contained therein.". --EdgeNavidad (talk) 06:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an article on the vehicle code. That would be California Vehicle Code. This article is about the bicycle relevant sections of the CA vehicle code, and explaining why and how these sections are relevant to bicyclists in California, so of course it is focused on the details in the laws. That's the topic of this article! The "big overview" is, or should be, in California Vehicle Code. I mean, should we delete 24 (season 7) because it is too much focused on the details of season 7, the big overview is missing? I agree some history can be added - about when each section was added, but that can be done without deleting the article. Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to get the point. The 24 (season 7) article should be deleted if all it contained was the plot. The article also has other things, about production, the strike, and it still needs information about how the series was received by the public. This big overview is also needed in the CVC-BRS article. If you think that this can not be added because that should be in the CVC article, then the only logical conclusion is that the CVC-BRS article does not belong on wikipedia.
About your pleas to the admin (which I am not): 1 is no reason, neither is 6. I agree on 2 and 8. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Finally something that makes sense. Thanks for that and the time you've obviously taken to give this issue due consideration.
Points taken about 1 and 2 in my admin plea list. The introduction/overview is definitely incomplete, but it is now at least slightly better than what it was two weeks ago. I agree the article is problematic and needs work. I was the one who put the under construction tag on it. I could use help improving it (and this discussion is helpful, but it would probably be much more effective if held on the article's talk page and the topic was how to improve the article, rather than being part of a debate about whether to delete it). But all this is beside the point here, where the only issue is whether the article should be deleted now.
You say, "The 24 (season 7) article should be deleted if all it contained was the plot". Don't you mean that article should be improved/expanded if all it contained was the plot? Don't you mean that it should be tagged with one or more of the plethora of maintenance warning tags we have available to us, and some articles are tagged with for months if not years before they are deleted? But to simply go straight to Afd and vote to delete it because it's not yet up to ideal standards? I just don't understand that. I would hope all of you would simply vote Keep on the grounds that, if nothing, else, this nomination for deletion is very much premature. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing WP:NOLEGAL to my attention. I was not aware of that. However, I'm puzzled as to how you see what it says as a reason to delete this, or any, article, much less to be the primary reason. If anything, it supports the existence of articles like this that provide and address legal matters. WP:NOLEGAL says nothing about what should be in WP articles with respect to legal matters or anything else; it is simply a disclaimer that states that legal information in Wikipedia should not be taken as legal advice. Consider these statements from WP:NOLEGAL
  • "Wikipedia contains articles on many legal topics" - right, like the article in question here.
  • "There is absolutely no assurance that any statement contained in an article touching on legal matters is true, correct or precise". - which implies that legal matters are covered in the articles.
  • "The legal information provided on Wikipedia is, at best, of a general nature and ..." - This implies that Wikipedia provides legal information. You know, stuff like ...explaining why and how these sections are relevant to bicyclists in California...
The opinion that this article is "not a encyclopedic neutral treatment of the subject written for a universal audience" is not substantiated. Anything in the article that violates WP:NOTAFORUM should be removed, I agree. But, again, I was very careful to only add material that is supported by authoritative, reliable sources. Even if there are some violations like that, that justifies having those tagged and potentially excised accordingly, not deleting the entire article.
I agree Bicycle law is a better article, and stands as a model for this one to potentially follow. Thanks for that input too. But this one is still under construction... --Born2cycle (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, how about giving this article a few months to improve, and, if anyone still feels it should be deleted then (say 9/1/09, is that fair?), it can be put back on the chopping block. In the mean time, please visit the article and leave your comments about how it is progressing. If nothing else, this process has served as a valuable source of suggestions on how to improve the article, and what direction it should take, attention it probably would not have gotten had it not been an Afd nominee. Thanks very much. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Bicycle law in California. That is the encyclopedic subject that this article is trying to address, not the Vehicle Code (and it's unfortunate that our article on the California Vehicle Code is still a stub). Perhaps the code quotations should be trimmed (full code section text could certainly go to Wikisource) but there is plenty of sources out there to write a neutral article about laws pertaining to bicycles in California, which are found in the Vehicle Code. Any "interpretation" of these laws that is not cited to a reliable source can be removed, but it seems to me that all this information should be verifiable. Information on the "function, publication, and history" of the laws could certainly be found and would improve this article, but such information will probably not be found online without a Lexis-Nexis account. However, a lot of information can be found about the current application of these laws, from both specialists such as Wachtel and from government sources. As such, any specific instances of original research can easily dealt with. And summarizing such sources would not make this a "manual, guidebook, or textbook" or "legal advice" any more than the article on United States open container laws, for example. Also, this is not "promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere;" the existence of reliable sources on the subject belies this claim. Nor is this article trying to "right great wrongs"; informing people on subjects of which they may have little or bad knowledge seems to be the very purpose of an encyclopedia. To any extent it is might suggest that police and courts are "wrong", perhaps it can be more neutrally worded if there is a documented controversy, or such claims removed if they can't be cited. In short, none of the problems asserted are unfixable, and the topic is encyclopedically appropriate, so I do not see a valid reason for deletion. DHowell (talk) 05:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I'm going to cry. Thank you!. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Bicycle law in California. I agree with DHowell's reasons, and I think that under that name, it is more logical to talk about its function, publication and history. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2009 (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.
More