Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connect Project


 * 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 Transport for London. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 07:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Connect Project

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm not sure this project itself is notable. There is no mention of it in the Transport for London article now and I can't find another source other than this marketing information from another vendor it looks like. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge Keep Please see comment below. It's a notable topic. I have added one three reliable secondary source reference and an external link to a TfL presentation. There are other sources out there. I'm not sure why it is not mentioned in the TfL article, it certainly should be. Philg88 ♦talk 08:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  |  23:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  |  23:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  |  23:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge - Notability is not temporary and this now defunct project was last news back in 2006. Would suggest merging it into Transport for London. Lamberhurst (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm confused by your statement. WP:NOTTEMPORARY says: "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Whether the project was undertaken in 1906 or 2006 is immaterial under this guideline. Philg88 ♦talk 17:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's precisely the issue here. The project never had the "significant coverage" required by the notability guideline and brief spike of interest in 2006 is insufficient. For this reason, WP:NOTTEMPORARY states "brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability". Lamberhurst (talk) 10:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete . A crappy IT project that didn't happen. The world is riddled with failed IT projects. Szzuk (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It may have been crappy but it didn't fail, it is currently in use across the whole of the London Underground. Philg88 ♦talk 21:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to TFL. OK you persuaded me, a paragraph on TFL is about what it is worth. Szzuk (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep This article is about a communications venture. Transport for London is a transport related organisation.  People linking to this page may typically have little interest in travel fare systems and the like. keep page here I'd say Gregkaye (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 07:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge - Non-notable IT project which briefly enjoyed media attention in 2006. At best, merits a brief mention in Transport for London. Lamberhurst (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Support - didn't spot that the proposal had been changed from keep to merge. Lamberhurst (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment !vote switched to merge, I don't think that it can survive in it's current form. Enough references for a section in the TfL article. Philg88 ♦talk 20:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge selectively to Transport for London. Source searches are not providing enough coverage to qualify for a standalone article. I found this source from The Telegraph, but not much else to establish notability per Wikipedia's standards. A merge is a reasonable WP:ATD. NorthAmerica1000 07:05, 29 June 2014 (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.