Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Underground trivia (3rd nomination)

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. — Ocatecir^T 05:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] London Underground trivia

London Underground trivia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Just a page full of trivia, previous AFD was over a year ago, before policies and such came into place about articles full of trivia. Violates several policies and should not have it's own page. The fact that it starts with "this is info not important for the main article" explains enough to me. Biggspowd 20:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above Rackabello 21:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Much of the detail in the page could be worked into a main article, but has been hived off to keep the main article size manageable. Yes the article could be better titled/worded/organised, but just because something is less important than something else does not make it unimportant. DrFrench 21:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment That is not a valid reason to keep an article. The whole "the main article was too big, let's put cruft in it's own article" argument is pure junk. Biggspowd 23:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks for dismissing my argument as invalid purely becasue it doesn't concur with yours. I did not suggest "the main article was too big, let's put cruft in it's own article" or anything of the sort. Please be more careful in future, thank you. DrFrench 13:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into London Underground, but I would there the most pertinant info only.--JForget 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I would almost always !vote to delete such articles, but in some exceptional cases there is enough material & enough reader interest to justify it, and this is one of the very few. DGG 23:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Just because an article is allegedly "interesting" does not mean it is suitable for WP. Might want to read WP:NOT, as this violates much of it. Biggspowd 23:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak merge - perhaps by integrating the most relevant information on this page to the main London Underground page, and/or simply copying the external link given at the bottom of this page. Andrew (My talk) 23:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge despite its title, not all of these bits of "trivia" are really trivia - some seem part of the description of the system (e.g., how deep is the deepest station seems a normal statistical thing one would expect in an article about any subway/underground system), some are real trivia (which stations contain no letters in various foodstuffs like lobster and walnut) and ought to be axed. If the London Underground article is too large (however that gets defined) to keep the pertinent portions a London Underground statistics may be a better name once the real trivia are gone. On an ironic note: if the London Underground were some fictional universe we'd have little issue in keeping many of these tid-bits as "plot details", "statistics" or "minor characters" (minor stations?).... Carlossuarez46 23:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speak for yourself. --Calton | Talk 00:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge what you can into the parent article, don't write its own section. Delete the rest. --Haemo 23:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge what little seems appropriate (some of the superlatives, say) and lose the rest. Some of it is just mad ("Wapping is the only station with no letters in common with 'lobster'"?). --Calton | Talk 00:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Rename as London Underground Statistics and remove the cruft (including all allusions to lobster and mackerel). There is good stuff here that shouldn't be lost. Capmango 00:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep but prune (remove all the useless cruft, keep the statistics etc.) And oh, yes, rename to something like what Capmango suggests. (We shouldn't have "trivia" articles.) -- Ekjon Lok 01:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge most to the main London Underground article, or to the line, station or rolling stock articles if applicable. Most of the items are not simply items of trivia but reasonably significant information about the system. Some things which are of zero consequence (e.g. "St John's Wood is the only station which contains none of the letters of the word 'mackerel' (as the word Saint is not spelt out). Pimlico is the only station which contains none of the letters of the word 'badger', at least until the proposed 2010 opening of Hoxton, which will then be the only station containing none of the letters of either word. Wapping is the only station with no letters in common with 'lobster'. And Redbridge is the only station without 'Walnut'!") needs to go. There is no hurry to do this however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG and others. There have been a number of TV documentaries made purely on Tube trivia - ghosts etc, so the subject qualifies as notable in its own right, I would say. Johnbod 11:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but get rid of all the rubbish about ghosts. Lugnuts 15:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The London Underground is, in my view, of sufficient importance and influence to warrant sub-articles and since there is a lot of trivia which is referenced and notable merging it back to the main page would make that page unweildy. I would not be opposed to it being renamed London Underground Points of Interest or suchlike. However there is a cleanup required - linguistics are of no significance and although haunting is a notable and (some would say) common phenomenon on the London Underground, specific intances need to be referenced. However a deletion debate is not the place for cleanup discusions, here we should only be concerned as to whether or not the content is notable and I contend that it is. A1octopus 18:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete We don't need to have every bit of info on wikipedia, and this is a totally indiscriminate list of info. Most of it should be scrapped, and if anything is of any value, there are other articles it can go to. Dannycali 20:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Checking over last voter's contributions, methinks WP:POINT. A1octopus 21:34, 29 June 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.