Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Amtrak station codes

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 of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 07:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Amtrak station codes

~~Delete~~ this as it is an unmaintainable list. All the three-letter code links are invalid links. This list is so big, that it can't be fixed, and it gives no useful information. Surely, people should check out the appropriate official site to get the meaning of a code. This sadly has a lot of back-links, but from checking, they are another reason to get rid of this. Three-letter abbreviation disambig pages shouldn't list station codes along with common meanings of the abbreviation rob 05:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Bjelleklang - talk 08:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: all information is verifiable, and useful. There should be no reason why this list cannot eventually be completed. Also, please provide some reason as to why Three-letter abbreviation disambig pages shouldn't list station codes along with common meanings of the abbreviation: if I wanted to find out what the three-letter code was on a luggage label, I would want to search on the code, not have to deduce which list to look it up in. —Phil | Talk 10:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This list is too large to ever be updated/verified properly. Nobody is going to spend hours reviewing every entry, so that one or two stations can be added or removed as needed. It's filled with masses of errors, nobody has bothered to fix, for instance, it links to the "train code" of OAC which re-directs to Ontario Academic Credit. Of course what it doesn't link to is actual train station articles. I object to these codes being on disambig pages, since it makes it harder to find other information. If we put Amtrack codes on disambig pages, we have to list other train station codes, part codes, and all sorts of codes. The disambig pages are to help people find wikipedia articles, and nothing else. We have to be wary of piece-by-piece additions to disambig pages, which can add up over time. --rob 11:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. By this logic, Wikipedia:List of lists should also go. --Jacquelyn Marie 17:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - But don't most of those lists actually point to relevant articles, or give red-links for articles that should be made? Notice, I AFD'd this list, but not List of Amtrak stations, which lets people look up a code, and also gives them a related articles. Alpha-sort is needed for full names, but not for 3-letter codes, as a) people don't know the codes usually, b) if they know the codes they can search for it with the browsers "find in page" feature. This list has a substantial number of erroneous blue links (roughly 50% of all links), pointless red-links (e.g. combinations of two city names), and has no useful links (e.g. no stations), and fixing this would probably require remaking it from scratch. --rob 00:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original data that is best looked up at the original source. Pilatus 10:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but unlink all the Three Letter Abbreviations. We have List of Amtrak stations and listing them by abbreviation is valid and might be useful. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Amtrak also has a list of their stations here. Wikipedia is a secondary source, not a copy of primary sources, i.e. not a manually maintained mirror of the Amtrak website. Pilatus 11:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think this list makes sense when we have lists of airports by IATA code, such as List of airports: N. Of course, the airport list is more useful since people more often refer to the TLA when talking about airports than for stations, but still, various ways of ordering stations is OK with me. I will let my keep vote stay, time will show if the consensus is against me, but I hope it isn't :-). Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - My guidelines are these: There should be entries for urban infrastructure, such as airports, train stations and bus interchanges. The List of airports is fine, as is the List of Amtrak stations, even though maintenance is a problem. The List of Amtrak station codes that we are discussing here is a duplicate of the List of Amtrak stations and also a copy of original data from the Amtrak website. That is why I think it ought to go. Others may argue different, of course. Pilatus 13:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have extensive documentation for airports, so why not train stations. - SimonP 14:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for same reason we have airport codes. Trollderella 16:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Trollderella. Un focused 17:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unoriginal Research. D. G. 23:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 00:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They serve the same purpose as the airport ones. I do think that the names for the lists should be similar to the conventions used in the airport lists, which still need some cleanup. List of airports: N is badly named since it is really by IATA codes which you can get to with the nav article List of airports by IATA code. Vegaswikian 06:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though I wouldn't mind a redirect to List of Amtrak stations. --SPUI (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- re-direct to List of Amtrak stations until this article is fixed. Currently, almost every line of this article has a bad-link, no useful links exist, and no user should stumble on this. However, clearly many here have shown an interest in fixing this, and think the content should be saved, so I request we re-direct for now, and when somebody wishes to fix this, they can undo the re-direct, fix the problems, and have a functioning article. --rob 23:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. --Metropolitan90 23:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.