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. I'm sorry this is the case, after all these debates it would really be better if there was a clear outcome. However, neither side has argued its case very convincingly. The keep voters argue that this is notable (read: covered in sources) but do not address the main delete/transwiki argument that only the definition can be supported. The delete/transwiki argument, though, focuses too much on the current state of the article, rather on the appropriateness of the subject. Note: I did take comments in the past debate into account, but my close mainly reflects comments made in this one. Mangojuice^talk 16:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roadgeek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Procedural nomination. Article was previously nominated for deletion twice. The first nomination was based on WP:OR and WP:N, with the outcome being keep and clean-up. The second nomination was per WP:DICDEF and was initially closed as transwiki to Wiktionary. This closure was undone and then the discussion was closed by a third user as no consensus (default keep). The outcome of a deletion review of this discussion was that the article should be relisted for discussion on AfD. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, can you clarify on what basis the article is being submitted for deletion (this time)? Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a procedural nomination, but the WP:DICDEF concerns are the most recent and presumably the most relevant. If there are other WP:OR or WP:N concerns, those can also be addressed as well. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Keep. It does seem like a WP:DICDEF but see Railfan and Birdwatching. Like these subjects the article goes further than a simple WP:DICDEF. I also note the huge amount of information on roads in Wiki (see List of roads and highways) so it seems probable that there are those interested in the subject and some may be fanatical. While there seems to be little literature on the subject (see this), google web gives about 56,400 hits (see). So my feeling is that it passes WP:N. While part of the article seem WP:OR, references seem to be building up in other parts. Article does need a good clean up, but this is not a good reason for delete in my view. yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Czar BrodieTranswiki. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 20:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see any reliable third party sources anywhere. Why bother cleaning up if there's nothing salvageable? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, transwiki to Wiktionary. Most of the stuff in that article is either unreferenced, OR, or not belonging in an encyclopedia. Whatever is left through that process could probably go to Wiktionary. I'll vote keep if more references are found, but for now, I disagree with the article being here at its present state. CL — 23:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/transwiki per my comments at DRV. The article does not seem capable of containing anything beyond a dictionary definition with trivia and misplaced content tacked on. Length alone doesn't mean something is beyond being a dictionary definition... this is an example of where that length is accomplished through filler rather than appropriate encyclopedic content. --Rividian (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary and create a "soft redirect" to the Wiktionary entry. There are certainly enough news sources for a definition but not more. --NE2 03:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above entry is, to say the least, out of date.--Hjal (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by that? --NE2 23:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, that the comment is dated more than three weeks ago, while the current effort to delete the article began only a few days ago; there were substantial efforts (by me, mostly) during and after the last deletion effort to replace and discover encyclopedic content and provide references. Second, the references to national news sources have to do with individuals identified as roadgeeks or as people who participate in roadgeeking-like behavior, or with the identification and unique aspects of highways or related infrastructure of interest to roadgeeks. Although this content demonstrates both the existance and notability of the hobby engaged in by people who call themselves "roadgeeks," and demonstrates what the term means without relying on Original Research, there is, as yet, no source for the origin of the term, for its pronunciation, or for the slight differences, if any, between roadgeek and its synonyms (road fan, road buff, Roads Scholar).--Hjal (talk) 05:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This nomination has now been posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways--Hjal (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see no reason to go against precedent here. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and minor rewrite I appreciate the comparison to Birdwatching and Railfan, but WP:DICDEF applies here. Birdwatching covers an act or cultural phenomenon where people watch and track birds for various reasons. Railfan is notable, but not in the way it is currently presented. That article needs to be reworked and renamed so that the scope is clearly defined as the act or cultural phenomenon of watching trains, and not trainwatchers themselves. (Note Bus spotting). This article would be more difficult to change, but with some rewording it could be a very brief stub entitled Road enthusiasm and fit nicely with notability standards. I would certainly volunteer to do this. Perhaps a definition of "Roadgeek" could be added to Wiktionary as well. Okiefromokla ^questions? 01:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and consider renaming as "Roadgeeking" or "Road enthusiasm." The hobby (or spectrum of related hobbies) described in this article is clearly notable, with citations from multiple reliable sources, including The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and several others. The content is not suitable for Wictionary (although related defintions are needed there). The Deletion policy was not properly followed by the users pushing for the deletion of this article (with no notice provided to authors or to the one interested Project, and with no discussion of perceived problems on the talk page). While doing my best to AgF, I find it hard not to see most of the interest in deleting this article to be based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:NOTINTERESTING.--Hjal (talk) 09:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. Splat5572 (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki per above. Even with a 100 references showing its existance, this would still be a dictionary definition.Yobmod (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although, again, if it were rewritten and renamed to Road enthusiasm, it would be perfectly notable. I'll be happy to do it myself. Okiefromokla ^questions? 18:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is improperly formatted, and needs more information about the phenomenon and less about the particular roads in different US states. It is not a "dicdef" in a strict sense though, any more than trainspotting or bus spotting. I also support a rename to the "activity" of roadgeeking instead of the noun (person) roadgeek. I'll admit my bias right here though, as I've self-identified on my userpage a long time ago that I am, in fact, a roadgeek, and I don't want my userbox to have a redlink in it. Keeper ǀ 76 19:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the articles about hobbies are inelegant. I think that they end up disjointed as people add the variations that they are interested in. Perhaps there should be WP:Hobbies that could establich a format (perhaps with a "Variations" section) and an infobox. However, the identifcation of specific interests of hobbyists seems to be a necessary component of any such article. How do you talk about roadgeeks without identifying what they are interested in? What kind of roads, with some specific examples; what highway standards and unusal exceptions, such as signs or fonts or numbering systems? Some of them drive to the end to take a photo and record the details, some clinch their entire state's highway system, some are only interested in highways as a part of their regional history. The state by state list might be better if it was structured by specific roadgeek intrests or if it was written as paragaphs. However, every one that I've clicked on so far had revealed sources that identify it as a roadgeek interest, either with a news link or a link to a roadgeek site.--Hjal (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Wiktionary per above. PhilKnight (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2008 (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.