Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iqaluit Public Transit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iqaluit Public Transit

Iqaluit Public Transit (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I think this article is very short, and information is unnecessary. And because its short length, it could merge into Iqaluit, Nunavut, or simply be deleted. It is listed in Iqaluit, Nunavut that this article would provide more information, but I think this paragraph could go into Iqaluit's transportation section. Also, there are no citations cited. --Smcafirst or Nick • Sign Here • Chit-Chat • Contribs at 01:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge to Iqaluit, Nunavut per nom. Bigtop 01:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge The article Iqaluit, Nunavut has a transporation section. Mkdwtalk 03:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Mkdw's recommendation. Ronbo76 03:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Transit agencies, even defunct ones, generally have their own articles. Having a separate article makes it easier to find if you are looking at a category of transit agencies. The article has a verifiable reference from a reliable source, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The Iqaluit article is already fairly long.--Eastmain 03:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep referenced, albeit little, article on a part of a capital's infrastructure. The town may be remote, but its public transit received national attention as per the source. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable, sourced, and somewhat notable for its resolution. It's a stub, but someone with knowledge of the subject matter can expand it. Not all articles on Wikipedia have to be 1000 words or more. 23skidoo 04:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per 23skidoo. The necessity of information is subjective and therefore not covered by Wikipedia guidelines. This failed attempt at public transit in extreme circumstances is both notable and verified from reliable sources. --Charlene 05:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep/expand or merge useful inforomation shouldn't be deleted -- Selmo (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per 23skidoo. GreenJoe 05:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 06:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 06:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per 23skidoo. Article is verifiable, sourced and everything is there. Hope there will be a bit more expansion. Terence Ong 12:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Keep per 23skidoo. Ground Zero | t 13:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Iqaluit, Nunavut per nom. Madmedea 14:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: an article about transporation in Iqaluit would have much better chances of expansion, and this information could find its place there. It would also be a {{Main}} link in the transportation section of Iqaluit. Suggest keep, then move to Iqaluit transportation, then {{expand}}. --Qyd 16:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm inclined to agree with Qyd. I don't see much purpose in a short article about a now defunct public transit system and there isn't much potential for expansion really. Forking out the Iqaluit transportation section of Iqaluit, Nunavut to a new Iqaluit transportation article and then incorporating the small amount of content at Iqaluit Public Transit into this new article pretty much guarantees a decent amount of information in the article.--Isotope23 17:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - per User:Eastmain and move per User:Qyd. --Arctic Gnome 18:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep and Close. This is not the place to discuss merges, or a substitute for {{expand}} or other content requests. No real request for deletion is presented (nor is there a policy reason cited if there is - the main complaint is that the article is a stub). Agent 86 19:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and move as noted by Qyd and Isotope23 above. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Agent 86. JCO312 21:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think some people need to give more consideration at times not just to content itself, but to how best to organize that content for maximum clarity, visible relationships with common topics, and ease of location. If this were merged into Iqaluit, for instance, then it wouldn't be in either Category:Transit agencies in Canada or Category:Transportation in Nunavut — so even if we keep the information itself, we have no natural way to flag to a reader of those topics that the information is present in Wikipedia. I'd suggest something like Qyd's proposal: merge to a larger article on Transportation in Iqaluit, and redirect this title to that...but keep the redirect filed in Category:Transit agencies in Canada as a flag. As a suggestion, however, the nominator should be aware that in future, if you're going to propose a merger, you should use {{mergefrom}}/{{mergeto}} rather than AFD to do that. While an AFD can result in a merge if people disagree on the appropriateness of deletion, it's not the correct process to use if you're proposing merger rather than deletion right from the start. Bearcat 05:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge per all above. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 05:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Eastmaine's rationale is convincing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • keep nom boils down to "article is a stub" which is not grounds for deletion. also, everyone else, name changes don't get debated here.  ⇒ bsnowball  09:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. I agree with Smcafirst, although I am new at Wikipedia, I think this article is not useful at all. (From a visitor's point of view). --Mix Precipitation 21:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete or merge. As per above and Smcafirst. Stephy100--A person who loves music!
  • Keep per 23skidoo. Short articles are fine. Real encyclopedias have plenty of "stub" sized articles. RFerreira 21:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Eastmain. I added a 2nd refernce [1]. And as far as this being defunct, per WP policy, Notability is generally permanent --Oakshade 07:01, 20 January 2007 (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.