On 9/30/05, SPUI <drspui(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
While it may be annoying when a favorite type of
article is listed for
deletion, it's best viewed as a chance to argue your case to not delete
it.
Remember that the case for deletion needs a consensus, which is actually
pretty hard to raise if an article has any merit.
So in other words, the traffic circle articles have no merit? Bull.
Actually I don't believe that the traffic circle articles have no merit. It
can be a pretty hard sell, though. I recommend a merge strategy. As I
understand it, traffic circles are relatively rare and tend to be much
larger than our European roundabouts. There are some of that style here, and
I'd have no hesitation in writing about, for instance, the Horsley Hill
traffic circle in Marsden, England because its status as a local landmark is
unquestionable. It's the large grassy circle in this aerial photograph.
http://www.multimap.com/map/photo.cgi?client=public&X=438500&Y=5652…
This used to be a tram interchange, and then in the fifties it was an
interchange for trolley buses--buses that could run on expensive diesel fuel
or on cheap electricity generated by burning the abundant local coal,
provided through overhead wires.
For lesser traffic circles, one might provide regional articles such as
"traffic circles on North East England", and so on. By following a merge
strategy you could easily save useful information.
I'd honestly have no problem with merging into the
town, as it is a
local landmark. It shouldn't break the GFDL even if the article is
deleted, as the revision history is now available to all for deleted
articles.
Is this a new thing? I didn't know. Is content also viewable? But beware,
the revision history of deleted articles is held in the archive table, which
has not historically been permanent (though that also may have changed).