Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tram and trolleybus routes in Tallinn


 * 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   keep. Closing as Keep. There is 1 argument for delete. A merge discussion can take place on the article's talk page, or someone can WP:BOLDly merge. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

List of tram and trolleybus routes in Tallinn

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not really seeing any point to this article - Article only includes 14 routes and a map ... All of which is more suited to a timetable rather than an encyclopedia. Can't find a shred of notability anywhere, I wouldn't object it being Merged to Tallinna Linnatranspordi AS since that article isn't that brilliant at the moment, Cheers, – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 12:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete "WP is not a directory, etc." Borock (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge to Tallinna Linnatranspordi AS, which can easily incorporate this content. postdlf (talk) 20:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to Tallinna Linnatranspordi AS since that company operates the routes. Altamel (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's pretty obvious what the point of an article called "List of tram and trolleybus routes in Tallinn" is. Whether or not what's in it is what you would find in a timetable is completely irrelevant - since this list clearly isn't trying to be a timetable (based on what information it doesn't include), it doesn't violate NOTTIMETABLE (which was presumably the inference of the comparison). As to notability - as in previous cases, I doubt very much that Davey expended any effort at all to find evidence of notability, other than a brief Google search. Taking a common sense view, since Tallin is the capital city of a European country which has (if Wikipedia is a reliable source) had trams since 1888, and since trams and trolleybuses are elements of fixed infrastructure that take considerable amounts of money and construction to implement, it's inconceivable that such a system has never received significant coverage. If we take the UK as an example, hundreds, if not thousands, of books have been written about the history and development of the various trams and trolleybus systems, which obviously includes listing the routes as part of that coverage. If anyone had been daft enough to take the time and effort to read all available books in order to create List of tram and trolleybus routes in London for example (unsurprisingly, nobody has yet), I seriously doubt there would be anyone here entertaining the idea that such a list was pointless and not-notable, and obviously nobody would be able to say it was a timetable, since they ceased to run over 50 years ago. I also don't think anyone would be arguing to have it in the London Transport article instead. On that point I find it particularly bizarre Davey claims the information is pointless, but also thinks it would actually improve the article about the operator if put there. Pointless information is pointless, wherever you put it, surely? Notforlackofeffort (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I planned on adding it without the tables as well overall improve the article but fuck it you can do it .....Since you decided to open this you can merge it to the damn article, Good luck!. – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 20:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge to Tallinna Linnatranspordi AS per above. Expand that article. This is an unnecessary content fork. -- Kinu  t/c 19:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A list of trolleybus routes is about as much of a content fork of the bus operator's article as a list of BMW cars is a fork of the BMW article. If this list was about London's trolleybus routes, then I doubt anyone would be claiming it should be merged into London Transport. Nobody is going to expand that operator article. In fact, while this discussion was going on, Davey has also been busy trying to make the operator article smaller too - apparently readers of Wikipedia don't need to know what types of buses the largest bus operator in Tallin actually operates, as it's probably out of date now (note that he didn't even bother to check they are, he did that merely on the assumption that it is). And obviously, what types it might have used in the past (if they have indeed been replaced), is obviously not encyclopedic information! Who cares what buses were trundling up and down Tallin's streets in the 1950s? Not Davey. Not anyone on Wikipedia it seems. What is more likely to happen is that once this list is merged, then later on, it will be deleted from there by Davey because it fails NOTDIR or NOTTRAVEL or NOTwhatever, since doing that doesn't actually require any discussion at all. He's done this many times to other operator articles. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There's nothing here that can't be discussed at that article; thus, this meets my definition of unnecessary as a standalone article. Unless I'm missing something, and there is and/or has been more than one operator that operates these services in Tallinn, this article is, to use your example, the sort of split that "list of cars produced by BMW" would be if BMW only produced one model of car. If, in the future, it can be expanded in the future to where its length would be burdensome at the operator's article and/or content about other operators could be included, then it can be re-split. -- Kinu  t/c 18:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You might be missing a lot of things here. Firstly, you're apparently assuming this list is complete - have you verified that? Do you know for certain this is as long as it needs to be to reflect the current system? I am pretty sure Davey didn't. Second, according to Public transport in Tallinn, the Tallinna Linnatranspordi AS/Tallinn Bus Company has only operated the trolleybuses and trams since 2012. I would say, given that this list could also potentially include information on historical routes (which go back to 1888), it doesn't make much sense putting it into the article about that company. Also note that I am in the process of rescuing the bus route list too (also deleted by Davey), and it looks like that's gong to happen, so it's going to look quite odd if the bus operator article contains the tram and trolleybus route list within it, but will also link to the diesel bus route list as a separate entity. There's also the issue of the name - why is the 'Tallinn Bus Company' filed on English Wikipedia under it's Estonian name anyway? Is that even the correct, current translation? Wouldn't it have changed in 2012 to reflect the fact trams are not buses? And if it is the right name, even if it was under its English name, why would anyone think to look at the article on the 'Tallinn Bus Company' for a list of tram routes? It's surely far more sensible to do what is done for many other tram systems, and split this list into two, one to cover Trams in Tallin and another to cover Trolleybuses in Tallin. I think the biggest thing you are missing about all this though is the fact that this discussion is not happening because Davey is in any way interested in improving the presentation or organisation (or indeed factual accuracy) of information on Wikipedia about the Tallin transport system, it's only being had because of his apparent total disgust at the fact Wikipedia has any list in it about bus/trolleybus/tram routes at all. Deleting them outright is apparently not going to work here, so he's taking the next best option and shunting it into an article where it's arguably not going to be found (easily/intuitively at least), and where he can quietly remove it from later on (as he has done before). In that context, if it was merged, then if the system did suddenly expand or someone improved the list so that is was now overwhelming the host article, I suspect Davey would be right there opposing any split, using the 'merge' decision here as the reason to do so. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I stand by my reasoning and, in fact, I concede some of the very points you make. Perhaps if you drop the battleground attitude, you might recognize that. That being said, I have zero desire to respond to what is ultimately just another bad-faith jab at Davey2010. Good day. -- Kinu  t/c 20:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge - no need (as yet) for a standalone article. Of course a list of BMW cars would be a fork of the BMW article, but its an appropriate split per WP:SPLIT. Notforlackofeffort, you seem intent on criticising a lack of information here and there but don't seem willing to spend any time fixing the problem. This is a project of collaborative construction. You seem to be here to argue (and in ways that totally miss the point of most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines). You also don't seem to like being here - suggest you find a different project to get pointlessly angry about.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please enlighten me about which rules I have totally missed the point of? I keep asking questions like that, and yet I keep getting ignored, on this so-called collaborative project. As soon as people stop ignoring me, then perhaps I might consider the equation of 10 hours work to 'fix' what it takes others 10 minutes to delete, even though they clearly know nothing about it and are less than collaborative when it comes to them explaining why they think rule X means outcome Y to them, might actually be worth it. In this case for example, it would take several hours to fix this list (or several hundred to do a proper job, which would obviously include learn the Estonian language). And why does it need 'fixing'? Simply because Davey apparently doesn't even think that information like where the trams and trolleybuses of a major European city go is "encyclopedic". I'm guessing the publishers of the World Trolleybus Encyclopaedia really dropped the ball. If you recognise that title Dave, it's because it's used all over Wikipedia as a reference!  In all the articles about trolleybuses. Many of which appear to have, shock horror, lists of routes in them (I suppose you haven't got around to 'fixing' these yet). Anyway Stewart, you were saying about how it's pointless complaining about stuff like this happening on Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia...... Notforlackofeffort (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Encyclopedic for any major city. It's not a timetable, which, as should be obvious, inclusdes detailssuch as times. The times are subject to rapid change; the basic routes, much less so.  DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to sound funny but .... what's encyclopedic about it ? .... IMHO this is as about as unencyclopedic as it can get..... – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 02:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you really do sound funny when you say things like this. Especially given your previous claims to be a bus enthusiast and know a lot about buses. In the real world, lots of books and magazine articles have been written about trams and trolleybuses, and even if you've never read a single one (which I suspect is the case), you should probably be able to work out using simple common sense that detailing where they ran/run forms a big part of that exercise (and obviously I'm not even remotely talking about publications which are designed to be 'travel guides' here). Some authors even present this information in tabular format, for the convenience or the reader. You know, just like the sort of tables you keep deleting from bus operator articles on Wikipedia. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. WP:NOTDIR does not apply. Reasonable article, better than a pure stub, for TRAM. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No but GNG applies which this doesn't meet.... – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 23:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Could be expanded and cited with more sources. Noteswork (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right it could be expanded but wouldn't it be better off in the Parents article as then that way that article could be filled up (there's barely anything there as it is!), Other than there website there is no other sources (that I can find anyway). – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 15:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - the most enthusiastic keep !voter here has now been indef'd for harassment and his... contribution... should probably be seen for what it is. For those who have suggested this be kept (rather than merged, from where it can always be split out later), I'm curious to know why you don't think these 11 lines (of content) would make another article so unreasonably large that this requires its own article?  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to Tallinna Linnatranspordi AS. This is not a travel guide. Lamberhurst (talk) 10:42, 1 January 2015 (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.