Content deleted Content added
→Line 1 (Rio de Janeiro): so easy |
Scottywong (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
::::::[[Rome Metro]] - [[Line B (Rome Metro)]] and [[Line A (Rome Metro)]]. |
::::::[[Rome Metro]] - [[Line B (Rome Metro)]] and [[Line A (Rome Metro)]]. |
||
:::::These were all as easy to find as your examples. You didn't by any chance come across these and ignore them? In any event, your attempt to show these articles should be deleted because you feel no similar articles exist is only backfiring. --[[User:Oakshade|Oakshade]] ([[User talk:Oakshade|talk]]) 02:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC) |
:::::These were all as easy to find as your examples. You didn't by any chance come across these and ignore them? In any event, your attempt to show these articles should be deleted because you feel no similar articles exist is only backfiring. --[[User:Oakshade|Oakshade]] ([[User talk:Oakshade|talk]]) 02:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::::Wow, great job. I don't think I've seen so many assumptions of bad faith rolled up into one comment. If you weren't such a raging [[Meta:Don't be a dick|'''dick''']] about it, I'd consider withdrawing the nomination. [[User:Snottywong|<span style="font-family:Copperplate;font-size:15px;border:#AAAACC 1px inset;background-color:#E0F4FE"><font color="#225DC8">Snotty</font><font color="#33CC33">Wong</span></span>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Snottywong|communicate]]</small></sup> 04:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Brazil|list of Brazil-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 16:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)</small> |
*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Brazil|list of Brazil-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 16:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)</small> |
||
*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation|list of Transportation-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 16:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)</small> |
*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation|list of Transportation-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 16:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)</small> |
Revision as of 04:41, 6 August 2010
Line 1 (Rio de Janeiro)
- Line 1 (Rio de Janeiro) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Also included in this nomination:
Delete as a content fork of Rio de Janeiro Metro. The metro system of Rio de Janeiro is well-covered at Rio de Janeiro Metro. The Metro system has two lines. There is no reason to have a separate article on each line. Details about these lines (including maps and stops) already exist at Rio de Janeiro Metro. SnottyWong spout 22:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Actual heavily used metro lines with multiple stations on each, in a major city no less. Per long standing convention, rail lines are always kept. Very extensive coverage exists on each individual line. [1][2] The Portuguese Wikipedia article is also good place to get more content from. Never have I seen a metro/commuter line in an English speaking country thrown up for AfD. Is this a case of systemic bias?--Oakshade (talk) 02:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith, no systemic bias here. WP:OUTCOMES says that articles on rail lines are generally kept, not always kept. Also, google news hits are not an indication of notability. Just because there are a lot of news hits on the rail line doesn't mean that any of them are primarily about the rail line, or that they cover it in any significant way (i.e. as opposed to a bunch of news stories about events that happened on or near the rail line). I don't speak Portugese, so I can't tell. In any case, there doesn't appear to be a good reason to create two stubs which duplicate information in the main article. Think about it this way: if there was an article about a subway system that had a single line, would you create an article about the subway system and a separate article about its single line? Probably not. Now, increase the number of lines to 2. Does that really change the situation enough to warrant separate articles on the two lines? Articles on the separate lines on large metro systems make sense, but for such a small metro system I think it is a reasonable question to ask. SnottyWong chat 05:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, rail lines are always kept, despite the semantics of the WP:OUTCOMES wording. You won't find any delted. This article is "about the rail line". This article is "about the rail line". This article is "about the rail line." And these all "cover it in any significant way." (Putting the sentences in quotes as they are you own criteria of what is acceptable evidence of notability). These are only a few of many and it only took me 5 seconds to find. And you claim this AfD is not a case of systemic bias but state you don't speak Portugese and yet made no indication that you used a simple translator to read the articles. This looks like a classic case of systemic bias not to mention a violation of WP:BEFORE. --Oakshade (talk) 05:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think you need to take a deep breath and count to 10. If rail line articles are always kept, then you have nothing to worry about. In my experience, however, there is no such article on Wikipedia which is always kept by default, no matter what. Can you find another example of a metro system with exactly two lines, which has separate articles on each line as well as the metro system itself? SnottyWong babble 16:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- I did a quick look and found Brasília Metro and Alicante Tram, both of which have 2 lines, but no separate articles on the lines. SnottyWong squeal 17:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just because two transit systems' lines don't yet have individual articles doesn't mean articles of transit lines should be deleted; there were never deletions of rail line articles associated with those transit systems, or anywhere else for that matter. And to answer your question, here are metro/transit systems "with exactly two lines, which has separate articles on each line as well as the metro system itself":
- The Dubai Metro (1 existing, 1 under construction) - Green Line (Dubai Metro) and Red Line (Dubai Metro).
- The Shenzhen Metro - Luobao Line, Shenzhen Metro and Longhua Line, Shenzhen Metro.
- The Kaohsiung Mass Rapid Transit - Red Line (KMRT) and Orange Line (KMRT).
- The RapidKL Light Rail Transit - Ampang Line and Kelana Jaya Line.
- The Copenhagen Metro - M1 (Copenhagen) and M2 (Copenhagen).
- The Manila Light Rail Transit System - Manila LRT Yellow Line and Manila LRT Purple Line.
- The Sacramento Regional Transit District - Blue Line (Sacramento RT) and Gold Line (Sacramento RT).
- MetroLink (St. Louis) - Red Line (St. Louis MetroLink) and Blue Line (St. Louis MetroLink).
- Rome Metro - Line B (Rome Metro) and Line A (Rome Metro).
- These were all as easy to find as your examples. You didn't by any chance come across these and ignore them? In any event, your attempt to show these articles should be deleted because you feel no similar articles exist is only backfiring. --Oakshade (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, great job. I don't think I've seen so many assumptions of bad faith rolled up into one comment. If you weren't such a raging dick about it, I'd consider withdrawing the nomination. SnottyWong communicate 04:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just because two transit systems' lines don't yet have individual articles doesn't mean articles of transit lines should be deleted; there were never deletions of rail line articles associated with those transit systems, or anywhere else for that matter. And to answer your question, here are metro/transit systems "with exactly two lines, which has separate articles on each line as well as the metro system itself":
- I did a quick look and found Brasília Metro and Alicante Tram, both of which have 2 lines, but no separate articles on the lines. SnottyWong squeal 17:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think you need to take a deep breath and count to 10. If rail line articles are always kept, then you have nothing to worry about. In my experience, however, there is no such article on Wikipedia which is always kept by default, no matter what. Can you find another example of a metro system with exactly two lines, which has separate articles on each line as well as the metro system itself? SnottyWong babble 16:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, rail lines are always kept, despite the semantics of the WP:OUTCOMES wording. You won't find any delted. This article is "about the rail line". This article is "about the rail line". This article is "about the rail line." And these all "cover it in any significant way." (Putting the sentences in quotes as they are you own criteria of what is acceptable evidence of notability). These are only a few of many and it only took me 5 seconds to find. And you claim this AfD is not a case of systemic bias but state you don't speak Portugese and yet made no indication that you used a simple translator to read the articles. This looks like a classic case of systemic bias not to mention a violation of WP:BEFORE. --Oakshade (talk) 05:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep both. We have these articles for the subway/metro/elevated rail lines in most major cities (there are at least eighteen, such as this and this, for the city in which I happen to live); and as Oakshade points out Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Transportation suggests no history of deleting such articles, as there are certainly reliable secondary sources treating them in substantive fashion. There should probably be some use of {{main}} and summaries in the Rio de Janeiro Metro article, though. Deor (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Both Rail/rapid transit lines are notable, as extensively detailed above. The two lines can be and have been treated separately. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 03:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)