Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cities that no longer have trolleybuses


 * 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. Jaranda wat's sup 01:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

List of cities that no longer have trolleybuses

 * — (View AfD)

This article obviously has had a great deal of work and has sources, but I just don't feel it's maintainable enough. Plenty of cities, I imagine, had trolleybuses at one point but no longer do; it could easily get unmanageable. (Contested prod, if the talk page is correct.) Crystallina 03:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC) (UTC)
 * Delete unmaintainbale, a bad idea. - crz crztalk 04:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't understand the logic: because this list is historical, it cannot be outdated--records don't change. Unless you have cities that can't make up their mind about trolleybuses (highly unlikely in my mind, due to the infrastructure needed to run a system), this page is not going to fall into inaccuracy (it may be inaccurate to begin with, but that's not the issue). Now you can have cities that tossed their trolleybuses and not make it into the list, but the list already looks useful even if it is a incomplete list. hateless 04:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * comment: My main concern here is that there will be so many cities that once had trolleybuses but no longer do that the list will become large and unmanageable. Crystallina 04:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Then the list becomes outdated and in need of expansion, which merit cleanup tags. Worse case scenario is that the list becomes incomplete; It won't accrue WP:V issues by aging. In any case, if this hasn't happened yet, why worry about it? hateless 18:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not only is it lage and unmaintainable, there's going to be a lot of gray areas and even problem with sourcing. -WarthogDemon 05:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Unmaintainable listcruft of an arbitrarily chosen, single-aspect characteristic of cities. Why does a cities once having had trolley buses have to do with anything of encyclopedic note?  It's a random way of organizing cities and would create a precedent for other "List of cities that no longer have..." articles.  Wouldn't that be fun? --The Way 06:46, 13 December 2006
 * This list is primarily relevant to the history of trolley busses, and as such it is very much encyclopaedic. The "random way of organising cities" would be a valid criticism if this were a category, but it isn't organising the cities at all. Thryduulf 02:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not needed.  Culv  e  rin  ?   Talk  07:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete utter listcruft, no possibility of getting an accurate or maintainable list. And if there was... so what?  SkierRMH, 07:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There are no problems with getting an accurate list, nor with maintaining it. A city either had a trolley bus system that it got rid of or it didn't. Trolley bus systems require significant investment of time (years) and money (£ millions) to construct and significant (although less) of both to remove. This means that very little, if any, maintenance is needed because the entries on the list do not change. The major change to infrastructure means that finding sources is not difficult. 02:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete listcruft. Danny Lilithborne 09:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is list a list of significant trolleybus history without cluttering up the main trolleybus page. Useful to anyone who wants to research this mode of transportation. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Really not needed. TSO1D 14:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge with list of cities with trolleybuses. I have been told that Wikipedia is "timeless" - in other words, we should cover historical subjects as well as current subjects. A list of anything should therefore include former examples as well as current ones. It may be suitable to split a list of current examples from the list of all examples, but the historic list should continue to include the current examples. See list of Amtrak routes for a list that I believe to be laid out in a good way (except for the corridor services). --NE2 15:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It could also be split by country, continent, or other region, like list of town tramway (urban tramway, streetcar) systems (which could use a new title). --NE2 18:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of cities with trolleybuses per User:NE2, failing that then maybe delete, as list looks unmaintable. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 15:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, painfully unmaintainable list.  young  american  (ahoy hoy) 15:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How is it "unmaintainable"? The only part that might be is that it lists only cities that no longer have them, which a redefinition of its scope would fix. The list itself is "maintainable"; there are many books listed that deal with the subject. --NE2 15:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is my point. What maintenance? This article needs as much care as a chia pet. Uncontroversial historical archives do not need maintenance (via editing), it's like archiving back issues of newspapers. hateless 17:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per NE2. I live in one of the cities that no longer have trolleybuses and can actually see a relevance to the information, although it should be linked back to specific articles on the history of trolleybuses in various cities. I must admit for no particular reason the title of this article made me laugh - it did seem ridiculous until further examination (I think I read it more as "do not" have - which would be just about any city anywhere). Orderinchaos78 17:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting list. Edison 20:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Helpful encylopedic list. It's no less maintainable than all the airport airline/destinations listings that we're all accustumed to.  --Oakshade 23:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge per NE2. This is a valid, sourced list that is maintainable. Thryduulf 23:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep It contains useful historical information. Its size, 48 kB, is not a problem. It is not unmaintainable. Valuable organizing tool that helps readers find related information in an encyclopedia of 1.5 million articles. Fg2 01:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Looks well-maintained and size is not too bad. Interesting and potentially useful. Certainly far easier to keep track of WRT completeness and validity than many other lists on WP. Grutness...wha?  06:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * weak keep cld argue it's of some use in context of debates about &/or history of public transport, climate change etc. maybe? &rArr; bsnowball  12:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I feel that the fear that it could become unmanageable is not enough to delete an otherwise useful list with a definitive scope and sourcing. If it gets to long, it could be spun off into respective continents (e.g. North American Cities that one had Trolleybuses).-- danntm T C 17:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The decisions to discontinue such systems are relevant in the history of mass transportation, and this page is a good place to look to see where such might exist. Useful for all the relevant local history pages. Verifiable, too.DGG 01:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Heaps of use full information and if it does become to large then just split it into separate sections L blue l 12:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, deleting this perfectly good article would be vandalism. --Zerotalk 12:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. 47kb but no useful information. Some cities have trolleybuses, some don't but it makes little difference to their identity as cities. A list of notable trolleybus systems (if there is such a thing) might be encyclopedic but this list is trivia at its worst. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 03:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Utterly useless to most, useful to a tiny few. Always favor the few who find an article useful over the few who are irritated by the existence of any article they don't personally find useful. The vast majority won't care and wont be affected either way. Whyaduck 06:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete trivial listcruft. Eusebeus 11:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per hateless.doco ( ☏ ) 15:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP - per Whyaduck - very useful and hard to find data for those who need it. Where is the list of  "Cities that Still Have Trolleybuses" ??? Also, great side piece to trolleybuses, where it came from originally.  SweetGodiva
 * Comment. I think you'll find it at: List of cities with trolleybuses. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 21:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ThanksSweetGodiva 22:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy KEEP per discussion 69.19.14.31 03:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that this page is useful to the small audience that needs it. It also appears to have taken quite a bit of time. It may, though, be helpful to Merge per discussion. Mikeeilbache r 23:57, 19 December 2006 (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.