Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Driving etiquette

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Driving etiquette

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

I created this stub a few days ago. It was promptly "deleted".. well... it was redirected to traffic, but the content essentially was deleted. Andyjsmith's rationale was that: "The material is fully covered elsewhere in wikipedia. I'm not convinced that there is such a thing as "driving etiquette" but if you think there is and you can prove it from reliable sourced then you should look at adding it to an existing article such as Traffic" My counter argument was: "I do feel that your rash deletion was unjustified. You do have a point, [that the info might already be in other articles on Wikipedia] but there is no mention of driving etiquette in the article Traffic, and although it was a quick stub that I wrote in a little while, I do think that the subject has a lot of potential and a lot of importance in it's own right. Take a peek at Driving etiquette at Google Books - the first source specifically. It seems like a well-documented concept. Also I think if it were an article, it would be a very useful article. I would imagine many people would find it useful to find a concise article on driving etiquette without having to fish out the info from various other parts of the internet. I personally think that it was a rash deletion. I'm up for a second opinion though - if it fails at Articles for Deletion page, so be it". So, here I am.--Coin945 (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At maximum, Merge and Redirect to Traffic. There is ample coverage of this topic already on the mainspace. Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 14:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect (which is what I originally did with the article). This is a pointless article - anything of note is adequately covered elsewhere. And on what planet is "Not cleaning your car in the winter" part of "driving etiquette" which "minimises collisions and anxiety"? andy (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not cleaning your car in the winter - never heard of it before either. The picture says it all.--Coin945 (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For the record, I did say (or at least imply) that it was a badly written, first draft, stub article :D. I do think that the concept is notable in its own right however. It seems to me (personally) that the traffic article has taken upon itself to talk about topics it shouldn't really be taking about, for instance, it seems to talk a lot about Traffic code such a turning, overtaking etc. even though there is another (albeit terrible) article for that. My suggestion is that, yes, even if the content is already included in the traffic article, perhaps it doesn't really belong there and there should be another article strictly devoted to that content. Not even giving the article a chance seems like a bad decision imo. This could be a very important article in the future if it is nurtured by many editors. P.S in case anyone here gets the wrong idea, no, I am not (I forgot the Wiki term) putting forward the exact same argument in different forums in the hopes that I can force it to pass in a different context. I simply wanted a second opinion.--Coin945 (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Driving etiquette is the subject of many articles and books and may be worthy of an article on its own. It's distinct from rules of the road in that many techniques are suggested but not legally required to drive (such as use of turn signals/slowly passing another vehicle/etc). Traffic does not contain the same information as the etiquette article. That said, the etiquette article requires some substantial rewriting. It is not encyclopedic as it currently stands, I'll see if I can reword some of it.--Stvfetterly (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The examples in the article show that there's no single thing that can be called "driving etiquette" beyond the basic rules of the road. What counts as politeness, for example, is often culture specific e.g. double parking and driving below posted speed limits (which in most countries are a maximum limit not a minimum one!). In some countries you are expected to move over for an emergency vehicle but in others you're simply expected to stop dead. In the UK flashing your headlights can say "thank you" but in Italy it's aggressive. And so on. Even in any one country people have different ways of doing things, e..g. in the UK Yorkshiremen, who are by and large a polite bunch of people, drive like maniacs and see nothing wrong with it! I fail to see how this dogs breakfast of an article can be salvaged into anything worth while. andy (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once a bit of lovin' has been given to the article (with the many different available sources in GoogleBooks and GoogleScholar being consulted), I would imagine there being different sections on the general curtesy rules in the different cultures. Also, as well as documenting the things that are considered bad etiquette due to being dangerous, the article would also document the many pet-peeves that drivers have (e.g hating slow drivers is more of a pet-peeve than an actual danger, and it was described in this way in the source I got it from). It's early days. I don't think you can dismiss an article because of its ambiguity. There are many other articles which have been written on ambiguous topics. They merely have to clearly document all the different interpretations of the concept.--Coin945 (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the north of England many people think it's polite to wear a hat when driving; in the south it's often derided. Will you be documenting this sort of thing too? andy (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If its a widely documented cultural pet peeve, then yes. P.S the article could also discuss the changed in driving etiquette throughout history. For instance (i'm sure there are sources to back me up on this), i'm pretty sure that when cars were first invented, driver were expected to take their hat off to passing drivers, as a friendly hello. That sort of thing. But only if it is a cultural phenomenon. A cultural pet peeve.--Coin945 (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You bet: try googling "wearing a hat while driving". Also "wearing shoes while driving" and "laughing while driving". But on the other hand wearing white gloves while driving seems nowadays to be a matter of etiquette in Korea and nowhere else. andy (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point exactly? Are you just giving examples of how subjective the topic might be? The thing is... well, obviously not to that degree, but there can be some degree of objectively in coverage. Take a look at this: [1]. Question 7. Obviously where it was written makes a different but this is info. Good info that we can use. Here too: [2]--Coin945 (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded the article and updated it with several book/magazine references regarding driving etiquette. It is a term that reaches back to at least the early 1900s and is the subject matter of many books. I think that (along with the sheer number of easy to find sources) would make it notable enough for a separate article.--Stvfetterly (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a substantial and notable topic. Merger to traffic seems inappropriate and, in any case, would not be deletion. Warden (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per numerous tertiary book sources that cover this topic in detail. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There is plenty of content. I regard the practice of some admins deleting articles no sooner than the first stub has been created as reprehensible. When I had this done to me some years ago, I was advised to put up an "underconstruction" or "in use" template to show that what the admin was looking at was not the final thing. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article looks fine. Too big to stick all valid content in another article. Has references. Driving etiquette is obviously covered in places. They have educational videos for it. I remember seeing a Disney cartoon explaining it in detail when I was a kid. Dream Focus 17:05, 6 December 2011 (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.