Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TOTSO

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 November 5.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TOTSO

I was researching this because it seemed likely that it could be de-prodded. Unfortunately, my research led to quite the opposite conclusion. This appears to be one man's idea, and not actually a recognized form of junction. The recognized forms of junction don't have as odd-ball a name, but are the properly recognized ones. Several of the junctions listed as TOTSOs are what are actually called, in highway engineering, free-flow interchanges. To quote one of the many sources on just one of the junctions listed here as supposedly TOTSOs:

"Junction 3a is a free flow motorway-to-motorway interchange linking the M42 and the M40" (Mott MacDonald (December 2004). "M42 Active Traffic Management Traffic Conditions on the M42 J3a-J7 Nov 2002 to Oct 2003" (PDF). Highways Agency: 3–2. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help))

The one man whose idea this is is one Chris Marshall, who runs the WWW site cited as the first source. There's no evidence that anyone else apart from him has documented this idea. Even Marshall himself doesn't document it to the extent that this article does. He only deals in U.K. roads. Needless to say, there's no evidence that Darmstädter Kreuz or the East Los Angeles Interchange are categorized in this fashion, even by Marshall himself let alone by anyone else. (The sourced cited for the East Los Angeles Interchange does not say anything to support this article.)

So not only is this one man's idea that hasn't been peer reviewed and incorporated into the general corpus of human knowledge, it's an original extension by Wikipedia editors of that idea — an extension made by Wikipedia editors on several language Wikipedias, no less. (So have a care when searching for sources to exclude information that has been taken from the Dutch and German Wikipedias.) There's no evidence that it's even used as an alternative name for a free-flow interchange. This is just double original research: Wikipedia editors' novel expansion of an idea that has yet to even escape its inventor. Uncle G (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the topic is not what throws me off, but the style it is written. It seems more like a definition entry with example lines to me. Moreover, inclusion of examples creates ambiguous topics, thus Wikitionary is a more appropriate place. Zoo Fari 03:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was the dePRODer, but if Uncle G is making such a detailed case for deletion I am probably wrong. :) My thinking was that 1) a type of road system is almost inherently notable; 2) Two other Wikipedias already had info on this term, so it wasn't likely to be just something just made up; and 3) a couple editors were already talking about it on the talk page so it couldn't be too obscure. An internet search seemed to reveal usage of the term, but perhaps this info is coming primarily from Wikipedia as the term is used in 5 other Wikipedia articles currently. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be somewhat of neologism combined with original research that decides whether an interchange fits the description. Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - neologism for a common but not too interesting characteristic of highway junctions. "Turn off to stay on" is just another way of saying, well, that the highway designation makes a turn. There is an issue of how to sign these on freeways, where the straight movement is really a left (or right) exit, and there have probably been government studies that have influenced the guidance in the MUTCD ([1]), but this would be better placed in an article about median-side exits if anywhere. --NE2 03:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some WP:OR that gave birth to a WP:NEO. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:06, 16 July 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.