Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rail transport in Equatorial Guinea


 * 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 in Equatorial Guinea. T. Canens (talk) 06:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Rail transport in Equatorial Guinea

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I see no reason for having an article which basically says that there is no rail transport (and no plans for it) in a certain country Kimdime (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

seem logical to perform a merge/redirect to Transport in Equatorial Guinea.&mdash;RJH (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect–As there is a link to this article in the navbox, it would
 * Merge/Redirect per RJHall. Given the presence of many other "Rail transport in X" articles it's not an unreasonable search term. Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep There was once a railway there and I have updated the article to include this history. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect per RJHall. Adding the historic fact tripled the amount of sentences in this stub but there is still more than sufficient space at Transport in Equatorial Guinea. I do not see the deletion rationale refuted by CW's expansion. --Pgallert (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * '''Merge with redirect per RJHall. No point in maintaining a micro-stub when the info can be adequately presented elsewhere. Title is a reasonable search term. Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge. Colonel Warden's research provided a worthwhile addition, but there is not really enough here to justify a separate article. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:41, 30 May 2011 (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.