Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U4 (Hamburg U-Bahn)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

U4 (Hamburg U-Bahn)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not necessary and nothing new to the article on the Hamburg U-Bahn. rayukk &#124; talk 10:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think this should at least be given a chance.  Most transit systems (London Underground, New York City Subway, even light systems like RTD Bus & Light Rail) have articles for each line in the system. 331dot (talk) 11:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep As per above, and it could be expanded with information that would be too specific for the main article. RailwayScientist (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:CHANCE applies here. Forbidding that, merge to main article Hamburg U-Bahn. epic genius (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:CHANCE is good, WP:NPOSSIBLE is even better. Sam Sailor Talk! 02:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)}}


 * Delete It's an unreferenced uncategorized picture gallery. Why are there not any articles for existing lines? If you say "keep", then you should help create the entire system. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The argument is not valid, please refer to WP:NPOSSIBLE that reads "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable." The idea that  is just ludicrous. Sam Sailor Talk! 02:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm This is really a vote to keep. I get pissed of when people vote to keep an article that has just been dumped, but they want others to do the improvement work. The idea of creating articles for every line is not so "ludicrous" because, as you have noted below, they are all awaiting conversion. Note that I don't say "translation", because it takes lots more work than that to do it properly. Thanks. Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, references have been added. We usually have individual articles for lines of major metro systems. Detail would be overwhelming for main article. —Kusma (t·c) 19:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep : Not only does subway and railway lines often survive AfD, if anybody had checked out de:U-Bahnlinie 4 (Hamburg) they would have known that there's a solid 25-30k of material just waiting to be translated and no shortage of online sources for those who care to search. Pinging for their reconsideration. Sam Sailor Talk! 02:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's a specific line on a major rail transit system, much in the same way the even shorter Purple Line (Los Angeles Metro) is. The German WP aritcle demonstrates a ton of topic-specific content distinct from the general Hamburg U-Bahn article. --Oakshade (talk) 16:56, 11 November 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.