Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toronto rapid transit signals

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. The nominator is reminded that "no general reader would want to read about this subject" is pretty much the ne plus ultra of an argument to avoid. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto rapid transit signals

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

No general reader would be interested in municipal rapid transit signals; the lack of general references prove it. Esquivalience ^t 03:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Toronto rapid transit. Sources like this exist, but there aren't enough sources available to substantiate the existence of this content in standalone article. epic genius (talk) 04:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT MERGE, because we don't need this peripheral detail overloading any other articles. If the information is valid, then it sould be left alone. If it is trivial fancruft, that is how its inclusion should be considered. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. epic genius (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. epic genius (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "No general reader would be interested" is probably true of the vast majority of our articles, and a dubious argument against deletion. (It's a sort of privileged I-believe-it's-unimportant-so-everyone-must-believe-the-same-thing variation on the theme of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.) There's presumably a small but active Toronto railfan community – as there is in any major city – who actually find this sort of thing quite interesting, thank you very much.
Merging wouldn't make sense, as the diagrams and images which convey the useful central information in this article – the photos of signals and diagrams of the different signal indications – would take up a rather overwhelming amount of space in the already-beefy Toronto rapid transit article. Indeed, this is a textbook case of a situation where a detailed sub-article is appropriately used to provide detail that isn't necessary in the associated main article.
(It's also worth comparing with Automation of the New York City Subway to get an idea of where a sub-article like this could evolve in the future.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is also a textbook case of a split because cruft won't stick on the main article. The article comprises original research and overly-detailed TTC signaling. If any reader is actually interested in this article, then they can get information on one of the various fan sites that do not have as high quality requirements as Wikipedia and can host original research. Esquivalience ^t 21:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. This almost reads like unsourced WP:Fancruft (and is unlikely to ever be more than very minimally sourced). It's also at a level of detail totally unnecessary for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Bottom line: Not notable enough for its own encyclopedia article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A functional WP:SUBARTICLE of Toronto rapid transit. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TenOfAllTrades and per Northamerica1000 - When I saw the article I thought "Who the hell would read this crap" ... but after 5 minutes I found "UK railway signalling".... So just because I don't like it doesn't mean someone else wont and plus it's had some views each day[1] So I'd say on the whole it is a notable subject. (I am aware of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but it's either that or an IDONTLIKEIT !vote.) –Davey2010^Talk 15:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's more a case that the existing lack of available sourcing tends to show that it's not a notable enough topic for this encyclopedia. At least UK railway signalling is an article about rail at the national level, and has some sourcing (though I'd argue it too looks to be substantially "under-sourced"... just not to the extent to qualify that one for AfD). But this Toronto one is not going to cut it as a standalone article, once you cut out all the non-sourceable content... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the above. We have a vast constellation of articles like this in the railway signalling by country/city category structure. It's too detailed to go into main articles and would seem to be a valid content fork. What's more Toronto's mass transit system is of sufficient size and notability. The article reads like a mass of WP:OR and that's where I'd start, at least with a maintenance tag or two. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Shawn in Montreal indicated one or two maintenance tag is where this article should proceed with, not with deletion.Lake Ontario Wind (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2015 (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.