Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horizon Pipeline

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 no consensus. Black Kite 13:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horizon Pipeline

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Really not sure about this one. I'm sure it's a real pipeline but dose it really need it's own article. It's been here basically unchanged and an orphan for 5 years. Ridernyc (talk) 05:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In my opinion, a minor pipeline isn't notable - especially if it's just moving from one part of a state to another. If there is another reason that this small pipeline is notable, please enlighten the lot of us. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Idea / Neutral - I would probably tend towards delete on something this old with this little expansion, but it feels like a ripe topic for merging into a large article or list of pipelines. Are you aware of some other similar articles? If so I might do some of the merging. Shadowjams (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out [Category:Pipeline_stubs] most of them are pretty much the same as this one. I was planning on figuring out what to with them after we see what happens here. It's one of those things that even if we do make a massive list, I don't see any use for it. It would just be a directory of pretty useless information. Ridernyc (talk) 07:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean. I'm fighting a similar battle on some football/soccer pages that have substantially less content than this. I think merging is a pretty fair compromise in most of those cases. Some of the trans-oceanic data cable articles are similar, and yet I've found them incredibly useful, and I think they probably meet the criteria. So I'm inclined to think pipelines are similar. But for practicality concerns having lots of disparate articles is a logistical nightmare, and if they're small then merging them together has little downside. Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Does not cite any 3rd party references or sources. :Majen27 · talk 11:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - (having created it) - I just created articles on all of the interstate pipelines years ago with the hopes to add things like major pricing points and maps, but the maps are not really available, and this pipeline is not particularly important. Scatter some seeds, sometimes they grow but in this case it didn't. Ignignot (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as first option, if a suitable target exists - such an article would seem to be non-controversial, and there may be sources to assist in its creation/expansion. Otherwise, delete. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if logical. Maybe pipelines by state or region would make sense? Not knowing much about pipeline infrastructure, I don't know if there is a way to classify them by regional network, or just by which states they're in, or what. --Closeapple (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- but not sure where: it seems to have two owners so that one merge to its owner will not help. I looked that the page on one owner, and its pipelines and other fixed assets are not listed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not the top priority pipeline, but every pipeline with capacity of more than 1 billion cubic meter per year is quite notable. I expanded the article and added some third party sources. Beagel (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIGNUMBER. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beagel's expansion and additional cites. Real and verifiable; has reliable sources; significant part of the energy infrastructure for the upper midwest. Antandrus (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hate to say it, but it's a combination of press releases, governmental information, and lists of pipelines. Those don't seem to meet muster on WP:RS. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Still neutral on the article - but EIA information is about as reliable as you can get for US Energy. Ignignot (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - True, true. If anything, my !vote is also relying heavily on the same precedent of keeping Alaska Pipeline, as well as, say, Short Street in Yorba Linda, California. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per article improvements since AFD commenced. Now includes secondary sources.--Pink Bull 03:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.