Deletion of Concurrency (road)

Comment: I suggest you read  {{u|TenPoundHammer}} especially "A variation of this is a : an editor wants an article ''improved'' but lacks the time or skills to actually improve it, so the article is nominated for deletion in the hope that another editor will take notice and improve the article during its pending deletion period and before the artificial deadline of the deletion process
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NEGLECT||WP:POINT)

Comment: I don't think the nom is challenging that the concept exists. The nominator makes a valid point. When you examine the sources, the first one uses the term "coincident" and the second uses the term "common section." None of the sources use the word "concurrent" or "concurrency." Doing a quick Google search turns up nothing which supports that the term "concurrency" is not a coloquialism. I'm inclined to support deletion. However, this may be an acceptable time to |ignore all rules. I believe this article is ?|a good change by common sense, and it improves the encyclopedia
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR||WP:IAR)