Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tacoma Streetcar


 * 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   delete. An article requires REFERENCES in order to establish and prove notability. It appears - based on reading - that this article *could* satisfy standards for inclusion. However, the complete lack of support ref's make it impossible to keep as a live article. Userfication, incubation or AFC are valid targets for this - but no editor has requested such as of this point. Consensus based on WP:V is therefore to delete at this time the panda ₯’  10:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Tacoma Streetcar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Advocacy page with no references. JohnMcButts (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. It currently is as the nominator says, but that is not by itself a reason for deletion. The topic of streetcars in Tacoma is notable, and a neutral sourced article covering the historic system, its demise and the campaign for a replacement could easily be written based on a very quick google search for sources. Streetcars in Tacoma may be a better title for that article, but that is also not a reason to delete. Whether the current article would make a better start for that article than a blank slate is the key question here, and I think it would. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge delete this article and make some of it a section Tacoma Link, I see no reason to have two articles about trams in Tacoma, that violates WP:DUP. Perhaps the resulting article should be called "Streetcars in Tacoma" or something like that. AadaamS (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As the article stands, there is no WP:RS which establishes how this article lives up to WP:GNG, which is the article inclusion criteria that every article must meet. AadaamS (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete There are no reliable sources on the subject of "Tacoma Streetcar", the proper name, so there should be no article, or redirect Tacoma Streetcar. Titles like "streetcars in Tacoma" or even "Tacoma streetcars" could redirect to one or another Tacoma transit related subjects, but those are not the same as "Tacoma Streetcar", for which we have no sources to base an article, or even an article section, or even a single sentence, on. This article should have been speedy deleted as blatant advertising long ago. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and Improve, but only if the "Tacoma Streetcar" is intended to be a separate heritage streetcar from the rest of Tacoma Link, as suggested in the article, such as McKinney Avenue Transit Authority which is affiliated with Dallas Area Rapid Transit, or Charlotte Trolley which is connected to the Lynx Rapid Transit Services. Otherwise, Merge to Tacoma Link, and add a whole section on it. -User:DanTD (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Enough has been said. -- do ncr  am  02:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My view on editing needed, as given further comments by others, maybe not enough has been said: Tacoma Link is about the actual specific new streetcar line.  It has a history section which provides some background, which should be shorter.  The short section should have a "main"-type link to the Tacoma Streetcar article, which should be renamed to "Streetcars in Tacoma" or "Tacoma streetcars" or perhaps best "Public transportation in Tacoma".  Let me call this "PtiT".  The PtiT article should provide more background, about the really old history and about the movement to bring back streetcars, and should present briefly about the current Tacoma Link with a "main"-type link to the Tacoma Link article and it should be open to covering any other bus systems and train systems and subways, actual or proposed (with summaries of any such topics if there are articles about them, otherwise just some brief treatment).  Note there are other goals of the modern streetcar movement beyond the one actual Tacoma Link line, and there is more history than is appropriate to put into the Tacoma Link article.  The Tacoma streetcars lede should be changed, it should NOT say it is one specific proposal, as it is clearly more than that.  The PtiT artictle is old history and relatively recent history of the movement and it is about multiple proposals.  PtiT, the article currently up for AFD, is a notable subject as there will have been plenty written about it.
 * This PtiT article ought to be placed in Category:Public transportation in the United States and there ought to be overall Public Transportation articles about every metropolitan area. Currently there is Wikipedia treatment of bus lines alone, e.g. bus systems linked from List of bus transit systems in the United States, and for trains alone, and for ferries alone, but I don't see integrated Public transportation in REGION type articles.
 * Also, in both articles there will have been major, expensive studies commissioned as part of this public works process, and environmental reviews, and so on, which should be used as sources and cited. However it is clear enough to me that there must exist sources and that this already is clearly better handled in two articles than one.  Hope this helps. -- do  ncr  am  19:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * If this is in fact a notable subject, could someone add a couple of citations to the article? It seems to be completely unsourced. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If I were to delete every unsourced fact from this article, per WP:V, it would be a blank page. What exactly do the editors above want to keep? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, please don't delete everything. Obviously the sections about the "City of Tacoma Streetcar Feasibility Committee" and the "Tacoma City Manager's Parking and Transit Plan" could/should include sourcing to plan documents and committee documents and/or newspaper reports about such.  And given that a major public works project is going forward there must be lots of newspaper coverage based on environmental assessment reports and so on.  I don't see any bad promotion (no business products are being advertised) and I don't see anything unbelievable in what is there.  It is appropriate to call for sourcing at the Talk page and by approaching Tacoma-area editors, but blanking the article to make a point is not a good way forward. -- do  ncr  am  19:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi doncram, the article must satisfy the WP:GNG to be a standalone article, there is no avoiding that. Accuracy or "believability" doesn't influence whether a subject is notable or not. The burden of general notability proof is on the editors who want to keep the article. A quick google on "Tacoma Streetcar" only turned up out of date articles (from 2002-2005 abouts) or self-published sources. This whole discussion isn't about the content of the article, it's about whether to keep the article. The 'Keep criterion is always the "subject satisfies the WP:GNG and this is verifiable". As it stands, the article fails these criteria. The burden of proof rests with he editors who want to keep the article to prove that it does satisfy the GNG. AadaamS (talk) 07:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, but move. This article is about two things at present: the historical operation of streetcars in Tacoma and a proposed vintage streetcar system distinct from Tacoma Link. The former topic is covered in the existing Tacoma Link article. The latter topic's notability isn't clear. I've located a feasibility analysis from 2007 prepared by the "City of Tacoma Streetcar Advisory Committee" which is very light on details. There's a news article from 2013 apparently discussing this study, or a related study. I'm not sure you can write a standalone article from these. Citizens groups proposing streetcar restorations aren't noteworthy without official backing. I think this article should be moved to Streetcars in Tacoma, Washington, covering both topics with a short reference to Tacoma Link. The current title is inappropriate. Mackensen (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep (and under that specific and capitalised proper name too). This seems to be a scheme, like Bristol's Light Rail project, where one specific project within an overall public transport initiative for a city has gained notability on its own and a distinct proper name to refer to it. It may not ever happen. Tacoma will hopefully make some wise choices about expansion of its transport system, the streetcar project may or may not be part of that. it is however a defined and discussed topic in Tacoma.  Sourcing needs cleanup, but a moment's searching shows that things are out there. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2014 (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.