Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line 1 (Rio de Janeiro)


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Line 1 (Rio de Janeiro)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Also included in this nomination:
 * Line 2 (Rio de Janeiro)

Delete as a content fork of Rio de Janeiro Metro. The metro system of Rio de Janeiro is well-covered at Rio de Janeiro Metro. The Metro system has two lines. There is no reason to have a separate article on each line. Details about these lines (including maps and stops) already exist at Rio de Janeiro Metro. Snotty Wong  spout 22:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Actual heavily used metro lines with multiple stations on each, in a major city no less. Per long standing convention, rail lines are always kept.  Very extensive coverage exists on each individual line.  The Portuguese Wikipedia article is also good place to get more content from.  Never have I seen a metro/commuter line in an English speaking country thrown up for AfD.  Is this a case of systemic bias?--Oakshade (talk) 02:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith, no systemic bias here. WP:OUTCOMES says that articles on rail lines are generally kept, not always kept.  Also, google news hits are not an indication of notability.  Just because there are a lot of news hits on the rail line doesn't mean that any of them are primarily about the rail line, or that they cover it in any significant way (i.e. as opposed to a bunch of news stories about events that happened on or near the rail line).  I don't speak Portugese, so I can't tell.  In any case, there doesn't appear to be a good reason to create two stubs which duplicate information in the main article.  Think about it this way:  if there was an article about a subway system that had a single line, would you create an article about the subway system and a separate article about its single line?  Probably not.  Now, increase the number of lines to 2.  Does that really change the situation enough to warrant separate articles on the two lines?  Articles on the separate lines on large metro systems make sense, but for such a small metro system I think it is a reasonable question to ask.    Snotty Wong   chat 05:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, rail lines are always kept, despite the semantics of the WP:OUTCOMES wording. You won't find any delted. This article is "about the rail line".  This article is "about the rail line". This article is "about the rail line."  And these all "cover it in any significant way." (Putting the sentences in quotes as they are you own criteria of what is acceptable evidence of notability).  These are only a few of many and it only took me 5 seconds to find.  And you claim this AfD is not a case of systemic bias but state you don't speak Portugese and yet made no indication that you used a simple translator to read the articles.  This looks like a classic case of systemic bias not to mention a violation of WP:BEFORE. --Oakshade (talk) 05:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you need to take a deep breath and count to 10. If rail line articles are always kept, then you have nothing to worry about.  In my experience, however, there is no such article on Wikipedia which is always kept by default, no matter what.  Can you find another example of a metro system with exactly two lines, which has separate articles on each line as well as the metro system itself?    Snotty Wong   babble 16:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I did a quick look and found Brasília Metro and Alicante Tram, both of which have 2 lines, but no separate articles on the lines.   Snotty Wong   squeal 17:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because two transit systems' lines don't yet have individual articles doesn't mean articles of transit lines should be deleted; there were never deletions of rail line articles associated with those transit systems, or anywhere else for that matter. And to answer your question, here are metro/transit systems "with exactly two lines, which has separate articles on each line as well as the metro system itself":
 * The Dubai Metro (1 existing, 1 under construction) - Green Line (Dubai Metro) and Red Line (Dubai Metro).
 * The Shenzhen Metro - Luobao Line, Shenzhen Metro and Longhua Line, Shenzhen Metro.
 * The Kaohsiung Mass Rapid Transit - Red Line (KMRT) and Orange Line (KMRT).
 * The RapidKL Light Rail Transit - Ampang Line and Kelana Jaya Line.
 * The Copenhagen Metro - M1 (Copenhagen) and M2 (Copenhagen).
 * The Manila Light Rail Transit System - Manila Yellow Line and Manila Purple Line.
 * The Sacramento Regional Transit District - Blue Line (Sacramento RT) and Gold Line (Sacramento RT).
 * MetroLink (St. Louis) - Red Line (St. Louis MetroLink) and Blue Line (St. Louis MetroLink).
 * Rome Metro - Line B (Rome Metro) and Line A (Rome Metro).
 * These were all as easy to find as your examples. You didn't by any chance come across these and ignore them?  In any event, your attempt to show these articles should be deleted because you feel no similar articles exist is only backfiring. --Oakshade (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, great job. I don't think I've seen so many assumptions of bad faith rolled up into one comment.  If you weren't such a dick about it, I'd consider withdrawing the nomination.    Snotty Wong   communicate 04:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You were the one who requested "another example of a metro system with exactly two lines, which has separate articles on each line as well as the metro system itself" and that was provided, in abundance. I'm sorry you feel the need for such a blatant personal attack and foul language when your request was fulfilled.  Peace out. --Oakshade (talk) 04:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Edit The above user's comment had previously used stronger language and that's what this response was to.  The user has thankfully removed some, but unfortunately, not all of it.--Oakshade (talk) 05:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My main point was not about notability or precedents anyway, it was that the sections in the main article (Rio de Janeiro Metro) about these rail lines are longer than the stub articles themselves. This is a redundant content fork.  Since there are no WP:LENGTH issues with the main article, there is no good reason to split these articles out at this point.  Per WP:SS, "When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own article, that text can be summarized from the present article and a link provided to the more detailed article."  At this point, the summary is longer than the "detailed article".  My rationale is that these articles have been split from the main article too soon, before enough sourced information has been collected about the individual lines.  Until these articles have enough information to be more than stubs, it is clearly silly to split them out from the main article.    Snotty Wong   express 05:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The two Copenhagen lines are particularly redundant, they even share tracks for more than half their length. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: This AfD was closed early by a non-admin, and that closure was later determined to be inappropriate (see ANI thread). As a result, the discussion was closed for about a day and a half. It may be appropriate to relist the discussion so that the debate can recover from this disruption and have a full 7 days of discussion. Snotty Wong  communicate 16:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep both. We have these articles for the subway/metro/elevated rail lines in most major cities (there are at least eighteen, such as this and this, for the city in which I happen to live); and as Oakshade points out OUTCOMES suggests no history of deleting such articles, as there are certainly reliable secondary sources treating them in substantive fashion. There should probably be some use of main and summaries in the Rio de Janeiro Metro article, though. Deor (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Both Rail/rapid transit lines are notable, as extensively detailed above. The two lines can be and have been treated separately. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 03:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: the nomination seems to be about organization, not notability.--Milowent • talkblp-r  05:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete/Redirect - Agree with nom, these are content forks see no reasons for separate articles when the main one can cover them. This AfD is not about notability so !votes based on notability do not address the nominating reason also arguments around WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS do not either. Codf1977 (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:OUTCOMES' precedent on rail lines. No reason each line can't have its own WP:SS breakout, but I would like to see more descriptive base titles for the articles than "line 1" and "line 2"... but a quick perusal of other such articles shows me that this is unlikely. Jclemens (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per the guy who Snottywong called a raging dick. Unomi (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good one. Per which part of his rationale are you !voting?  The part where he says we should keep the articles so as to not perpetuate systemic bias, or the part where he establishes the notability of the rail lines (which was never in question to begin with)?  Or did you just want to call attention to the fact that I called him a dick?    Snotty Wong   confess 17:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The part which showed that keeping this article would be consistent with extant policy application, you know, the part that would likely have made you withdraw your nomination if its delivery didn't make you feel butthurt. Unomi (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok, I see. So you're choosing to also selectively ignore the actual reason I brought these articles to AfD (redundancy and WP:CFORK) and instead argue that articles on rail lines are magical and special and the rules don't apply to them, so they must always be kept 100% of the time, no matter what.  Good job.    Snotty Wong   chatter 18:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This could be a case of the cart before the horse, on Wikipedia policy follows from behavior. When it has been demonstrated that extant community norms embrace and accept this article structure in these cases, then it is not a matter of rules not applying to them, it is a matter of the rules not having been written to encompass them to the degree necessary to not confound users such as yourself. The actual reason you brought them here is that you are a tool. Good job. Unomi (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA. Invalid reason to keep the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasteur (talk • contribs) 18:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Citing an editor who used valid reasons like the topic passing WP:GNG to support their argument is a perfectly valid reason to Keep the article. It was Snottywong who called an editor a "raging dick" and violated WP:NPA, not Unomi. --Oakshade (talk) 01:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. On current evidence, it would appear to be a total waste of reader's time, and Wikipedia's editor's time, to fork these articles. And making all articles equally crap is not how you fight systemic bias. If people have a fondness for splitting these articles for no good reason, simply ask them to justify it. If not satisfied with the answer, put them up for deletion. If there are enough successful deletions, update OUTCOMES. If others think there are good reasons for doing this sort of splitting all the time, that do not violate WP:FORK, then document them in a guideline and ask the community to approve it, and then you can have these sorts of Afds dismissed easily. This is basic stuff guys, and all this juvenile namecalling and butthurt going on in here over one example is just a similar giant waste of time. Sort your lives out all of you. MickMacNee (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The waste of time was bringing this matter to AFD. The supposed problem would be best remedied by ordinary editing and the relevant guideline emphatically states that If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD..  The many other suggestions and recommendations of that guideline do not seem to have been followed either. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete (or Redirect) as content forks. Nominator is correct in his reasoning; if there was only one line, having an article on the system and an article on the line is unnecessary duplication. Increasing the number of lines to two only reduces this duplication a hairsbreadth. Forking out content is already too common on Wikipedia and a stand needs to be taken against it. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - (the original creator of these articles) added a large history section to each article.  These sections were a Google translation of the Portuguese articles on these rail lines.  It turns out that the Portuguese articles are copy-paste copyvios of various Portuguese blogs.  I have deleted these large, unsourced, unwikified, machine-translated, copyvio sections from both articles.  See my edit summaries for links to the copyvios.    Snotty Wong   confer 00:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete both. They're illogical content forks that serve neither readers nor editors (you end up with more to watch with what can only host redundant content). Have no objection to redirects later (however unlikely they are to be needed).Bali ultimate (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The added referenced history section is unique to Line 1 and not a content fork. --Oakshade (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Since this discussion was closed for a day, I removed it from the log for the 4th and transcluded it onto the log for the 5th. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is not as good as it could be, but a separate line on a metro system is a unique entity which is a logical topic for an article. Information on history, geography, and stations is detailed enough to justify a separate article and avoid overburdening the main article on the Rio de Janeiro metro. Individual subway lines for other metro systems have their own articles (New York even has articles on sections of subway lines), a practice which has a long uncontroversial history. I see no convincing reason to treat Rio de Janeiro differently just because they happen to have fewer lines. Even if the content could be added to the main article on the subway system, that would be an argument to merge, not to delete. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The information is already at the main article. The problem is that these new spinoff articles don't provide any information which isn't already covered at the main article.    Snotty Wong   verbalize 19:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep our practice consistently is that each individual one is notable, as well as the overall system. Wikipedia, being NOT PAPER can afford some overlap. If the overtlap is too great, perhaps some detail can be removed from the parent article.    DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article on the overall network is already at 30K, which is the limit recommended by WP:SIZE, and still needs work.  There are several more lines in gestation and so it makes sense to prepare for this growth.  The network operator obviously thinks that it is sensible to divide the network into lines which are named and colour coded to assist passengers and staff when presenting information about the network.  It seems sensible to follow the same structure to assist the navigation of our readership. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:49, 12 August 2010 (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.