Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transport in Serbia and Montenegro


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Transport in Serbia and Montenegro

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Redundant, no justification for an article. At the very least it should be a redirect. Buttons (talk) 02:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What would it redirect to? -- Bduke   (Discussion)  03:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you can't redirect to two different articles I suggest back to the main article or just move to delete and call it a day. Buttons (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, essentially meaningless article. J I P  &#124; Talk 06:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete orphaned page, I don't see any one linking to this any longer since the countries split 4 years ago. Admrboltz (talk) 08:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep harmless dab page at the moment. {Also we have many articles about no-longer extant states.) Rich Farmbrough, 08:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC).


 * Keep per Rich Farmbrough. The fact that the countries split up makes life a bit difficult for Wikipedians, but I see no reason not to leave a signpost behind pointing to where the previous information has been moved to. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep looks like a rather useful disambiguation to me. What's the problem? Totnesmartin (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a serious problem by any means, but I can't see how it's justified under WP:DISAMBIG. The guideline says that Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead.; I don't think that really applies here. The phrase itself doesn't lead to the two articles, although the topic itself sort of does. Assuming this is a plausible search term (which I'm not convinced about ), searching for it gives Transport in Serbia on the drop-down list, and offering Transport in Serbia and Montenegro as an option is probably more confusing as it suggests the presence of another article on the topic. Alzarian16 (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I was about to say "keep as harmless", but Alzarian16 raises an excellent point, so weak delete. Sometimes "harmless" things are harmful just by the virtue of existence. No such user (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as pointless -- nothing substantively links here, except Transport in Serbia and Montenegro (disambiguation) which also ought to be deleted. This may once have eben a substantive article, but if so, has (correctly bene split into the two successor states, leaving nothing.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Question Is there not scope for an article covering transport in Serbia and Montenegro during the time that the country existed? Mjroots2 (talk) 05:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Possibly; there should be sufficient sources and it would (I think) pass any reasonable benchmark of notability. However, Serbia and Montenegro was only a country for 14 years, during which time there wasn't drastic change in transport afaicr - there's simply not a great deal of history. What would you write about, a couple of train timetable changes, a rebuilt bridge, and some resurfaced roads? :-) bobrayner (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose the issue here is one of minor complete-ism. If our coverage of "Transport in ..."  runs from 1900 (say), one should  be able to pick any point on land, and any-time since then and find the appropriate page - that should lead to the appropriate information. I have no issue with this page being a redirect "Transport in Yugoslavia" "transport in the former Yuogslavia", a dab page ,or a very short article that says a bridge was built (or more likely blown up?) adn "see also" the precursor and successor states. Any of these seems reasonable, depending on detail. Rich Farmbrough, 20:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC).


 * Keep Is a useful navigation tool for one who may be looking for one of the two articles listed. If there is a suitable page to merge it to, I would support that. Sebwite (talk) 22:10, 3 November 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.