Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sector 1 (CityRail)

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 of the debate was delete all articles. Mailer Diablo 05:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sector 1 (CityRail)

I am also nominating the following related articles for deletion

  • Sector 2 (CityRail)
  • Sector 3 (CityRail)
  • Sector 4 (CityRail)
  • Sector 5 (CityRail)

The notable information from the above nominated pages are in the CityRail article, thus all pages are redundant. So Delete All --Arnzy (Talk) 02:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - With great respect to everyone, I wish Americans and Canadians would keep out of debates like this. I don't think you guys know much about CityRail (if you do I am very sorry), but I wouldn't just jump on US and Canadian votes and randomly vote for their deletion for reasons that I may not know anything about. Anyway, the train types which the Sectors determine are listed on CityRail's webpage and the sectors are not obscure as people have suggested. However, I will agree that the five articles don't warrant their own page each - one page will suffice when the CityRail article is improved and that information doesn't need to be on the front page. I have merged all the information in the articles onto the front page so you are now welcome to delete them.
That's a Delete all from me. (JROBBO 13:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC))
I spent almost an hour trying to find out what this topic was about, and came to the conclusion that if CityRail didn't think it was that important, Wikipedia probably didn't need it. Peter Grey 18:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
My apologies then - I did note that you at least gave reasons for the deletion - so thank you. Some people on WP don't give any and if they don't know anything about the subject and can't give a good reason from their own research, they shouldn't be voting. You have made a good effort, so thanks - I appreciate it. (JROBBO 07:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC))
  • Comment Not a vote, but the info in these is very redundant. Adding more would be a good idea. M1ss1ontomars2k4 14:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete on the basis that the arguments put forward are persuasive and no one has put any counter points. Tyrenius 18:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this not-particularly-useful soft redirect. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, utterly useless page. -- Heptor talk 23:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and JROBBO. JPD (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm all for railcruft, but this is too much. Ambi 01:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete un-necessary stubs.--cj | talk 06:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with question Information exists in cityrail as per nom. (Is this a merge and delete? Would that be GFDL compatible?) Andjam 07:09, 27 April 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.