Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizens Area Transit: Routes

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 of the debate was indeterminate, but certainly not to keep. Relisting will probably not yield much either. Consensus seems to be somewhere between redirect and delete. Since redirects are cheap, redirect to Citizens Area Transit it will be. --Ezeu 07:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citizens Area Transit: Routes

Someone had posted a {{dated Prod}} tag on this page. I felt that it should not simply be expunged without discusaion.

Apparently, Citizens Area Transit is a Las Vegas, Nevada Regional transit provider, and this page, obviously, is a list of routes of that system. I think I can agree that this, perhaps, is too limited in interest to be something that should generally be included in Wikipedia, however there is plenty of stuff that is of extremely limited interest, such as Category:Streets in Washington, D.C. I felt, however, that mere uncontested expungement was not the answer.

[edit] Recommendations

• If there is a page for Citizens Area Transit, merge the route information on that page.
• Make this page a subpage of C.A.T. as in Citizens Area Transit/Routes as opposed to a standalone page.
• If there is no general, substantial article on Citizens Area Transit, delete.

As I do not even live in Nevada, I have no preference and no opinion other than I thought this should be something thought over and a consensus formed rather than a knee-jerk reaction.

Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 13:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up big time. There are way too many headings and subheadings, but I do think that there is some useful information here. Zepheus 01:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Citizens Area Transit with no merge. The bus system can do a much better job of maintaining information about its routes on its own web site, which it already does. [1] Few readers would look for a bus schedule in an encyclopedia when they can go to the official source. --Metropolitan90 04:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete with an understanding this isn't policy. We welcome this kind of article if it actually had any information not on the rtc website. jbolden1517^Talk 05:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect without the merge per Metropolitan90. Kevin 07:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, or merge, the history of cancelled routes. the rest, as noted above, can be easily sourced elsewhere. I fervently hope that contributors to this article keep contributing to wikipedia. Colonel Tom 08:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect, no merge per Metropolitan.Captainj 10:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree with Metropolitan90 that few readers would look for it anyway, but I think that because of it no redirect is needed. As for the actual content, Wikipedia isn't the place for it. -- Hirudo 14:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Make subarticle of CAT and Clean-up - I am the user who posted the routes in the first place. I understand that most people will just go to RTC's website and find information there, but me being a citizen of Las Vegas, and me knowing lots of people in the hierchey of the company, they don't do a good job of keeping things up to date. Trust me. I would perfer this to not be deleted as I probably state some places that CAT busses go to that RTC doesn't even mention. I do have a link from my CAT website to CAT on Wikipedia, so persons who go to my site, come here too. I believe this is good FYI stuff, and since other transit pages have their route layouts (Like LACMTA), I think mine should stay. -- cello06 08:00, 03 Jun 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is difficult to maintain and is not really the type of information that should be in an encyclopedia. Zaxem 00:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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.