Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finnegan Ferry


 * 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 Finnegan, Alberta. Consensus is to merge, which still allows recreating if secondary sources show up later on. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Finnegan Ferry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:GNG. The single source proves existence, but not notability. ubiquity (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to Finnegan, Alberta, which presently has no mention of the ferry. Not finding adequate source coverage to qualify a standalone article, but a merge will improve the article about the community. North America1000 01:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I would totally support such a merge. ubiquity (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge as above seems a good option. Atlantic306 (talk) 05:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Merge may be the most satisfactory solution here, but for the record it should be noted that GBooks turns up content about the ferry and its history in 2 books, one of which also states that this ferry was used in a Tom Cochrane video. . --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge [was Keep, or, second-choice, merge to become a row in a new table within List of cable ferries.]] Offhand, I tend to think any cable ferry is going to be notable on its own or at least list-item-notable for mention in a List of cable ferries (currently part of the cable ferry article).  It also should be mentioned in its town/city article, but a town/city article is not going to include span and size measurements and other facts that are worth arraying and making comparable.  If it is to be merged/redirected, the natural target is the list-article of cable ferries.  That list-section so far has no table and no details for the ferries listed.  The (draft) guidance at wp:ATD states: "If the new list-item would be longer than others merely enumerated, consider creating a table in the target list-article with the topic as the first expanded table row."  A "Merge" decision here can specify that type of merge be done.  I may browse for sources to support outright Keep decision, but merge to the list is better than merge to the town IMHO. -- do  ncr  am  03:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes about keep. It is mentioned in multiple guidebooks and is effectively a tourist attraction.  As can be seen here, it is a historic site as designated by a Province of Alberta "Alberta's history" historic plaque.  Founded and operated by homesteader John Finnegan (1842-1924), it is of historic era (for North America).  The opening of the ferry no doubt opened up a new area beyond the Red Deer River to homesteading, or it allowed agricultural products to get to market, or it contributed to the economy of the area, or whatever.   It is certainly going to be covered in off-line books of history about Alberta or its southern parts. -- do  ncr  am  04:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Another reason to keep as a separate article is that it is clearly "list-item-notable" in two lists, the one of cable ferries and the List of crossings of the Red Deer River, as well as worthy of being covered in the community article. Per the (draft) ATD advice, "When a topic is naturally covered in more than one list-article, however, keeping a separate article to hold expanded content (avoiding duplication) becomes more reasonable." -- do  ncr  am  04:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources don't have to be available online. I think the historic marker mentioned above should be cited as a source in the article, as it proves the government of Alberta (a reliable source, at least when it comes to Alberta history) regards the ferry as notable. ubiquity (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Revisiting, I guess it is okay and probably best to merge to Finnegan, Alberta, after all. Its main coverage can be there, and that can be linked from the two list-articles. -- do  ncr  am  19:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge per NA1k as well as per Docram above. – Davey 2010 Talk 13:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and then mention whatever and however amount needed at the other article, because the current one is essentially simply a tour guide, not actually even giving how "historic" it is by stating what its age or actual history is. Anything can easily be mentioned anew at the other article, but nothing from the current article suggests there's both significant and substantial information for an acceptable merge; the only listed information are pieces about it such as a few sentences of 'interesting facts' of the founder, and then the fact it was used for a music video. SwisterTwister   talk  18:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – If the article is deleted, then mentions at Finnegan, Alberta, List of cable ferries and/or List of crossings of the Red Deer River will be difficult to perform, because the article will not be available for anyone to edit except for administrators. North America1000 19:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GEOLAND, there is a lot more information on the page than, as the guideline says, simply "name and location". There is possibly more that could be written, Elves book talks about the ferry being used for smuggling during prohibition.  And for goodness sake, this is just the sort of thing that ought to be in a universal encyclopaedia.  Don't let the minutiae of the rules stand in the way building a worthwile page; if for no other reason, keep it under WP:IAR. SpinningSpark 23:10, 30 September 2016 (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.