Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney underground railways

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 merge to Railways in Sydney. Stifle (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney underground railways

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

The purpose of this page is unclear. It doesn't contain any unique information, instead providing a summary of information on discrete elements of the Sydney rail network. This creates a problem in keeping the information up-to-date. From the history, it appears the original concept behind this page was to provide information on urban caving in Sydney more than anything else – hardly encyclopaedic. Unlike London, Sydney lacks a separate "underground" railway system – many suburban lines are partially in tunnel. Mqst north (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article would certainly benefit from a better title and a general spruce up, but the topic is clearly viable: lots has been written about the underground stations, underground components of the various lines, and the proposals to build new underground/semi-underground lines. Nick-D (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Certainly it is a viable topic, but every topic you list above has a more logical home: the station articles, the line articles, and Proposed railways in Sydney. Separating that information out here doesn't add to the reader's understanding of the topic: at best – and the article is clearly not in this state – it is a collection of content duplicated from other articles. Mqst north (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No real deletion nomination has been supplied. "This creates a problem in keeping the information up-to-date." So what? EVERY article can suffer with this. If the content should be merged, then suggest it on the relevant talkpages/projects. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read my entire nomination above: the main point is that this article contains no unique content. Mqst north (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Railways in Sydney is the correct article for this information. There is no need for a separate article for lines that happened to be built underground. Gareth (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the information is mostly duplicated at Railways in Sydney#Underground sections and Railways in Sydney#Disused tunnels. The only question here is: Should this info remain at Railways in Sydney and the subject of this AfD be merged/redirected to there; or should the info be splitted to this article, and the two sections at Railways in Sydney have only a short sentence and a "main article" template directing the reader here. Please comment. Kraxler (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Railways in Sydney. Majority of information is already there anyway, and there is no compelling need to keep this information split in multiple separate articles.--Staberinde (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Railways_in_Sydney#Underground_sections. There are no sources that discuss this particular subject particularly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Railways in Sydney. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:13, 15 September 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.