Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Underground trivia (4th nomination)

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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London Underground trivia

This has been nominated three times before, but has survived due to the inclusion of some statistical records among a bunch of inappropriate trivia, and many WP:ILIKEIT votes. I moved all the relevant info to the pages London Underground statistics (new), London Underground, and London Underground history. What remains is unencyclopedic and should be deleted. Calliopejen1 17:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per earlier discussions i am going to now say merge and redirect into relevant articles, even the fun facts. I will also raise this at WP:LT. Simply south 17:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the opening statement of the article sums it up 'This article contains information about the London Underground railway which is not of sufficient importance for inclusion in the main article.' If information is important it will be in the article, if it isn't it does not belong in an encyclopaedia but a site dedicated to a specific. Nuttah68 17:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this really sums it up: Pimlico is the only station which contains none of the letters of the word 'badger'. Lugnuts 18:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it doesn't fit into either the article or the Main Article page of a section, then it's not notable. A collection of "not worth the space anywhere else." MarkBul 20:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for anyone coming here to place 'I like it' votes: the page was 'rescued' to the Train Spotting World wiki in July, as I suspected another AfD might be forthcoming. Hence, to those editors, please let the AfD run its course, and enjoy the page in its new home here. EdJogg 21:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remark: I suppose it is inevitable with the page title and the opening paragraph that this gets deleted. It is going, sooner or later, to become a victim of the "Trivia Deletionists", who see the word "trivia" and leap upon the lynch mob bandwagon, often but not always failing to understand that some articles of trivia are truly encyclopaedic, precisely because of the trivia contained therein. Some trivia is encyclopaedic, other trivia is not. In this case the pure fact that there is this quantity of ephemera about the London Underground is itself encyclopaedic, whereas a list of trivia about my feet would not be. My position is strongly and ironically neutral. This comment is to ask the closing admin simply to look at the article together with the merits of the arguments here, and to ensure that the article is only deleted if that is a truly worthwhile end result. Fiddle Faddle 23:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a collection of trivia elements.--JForget 23:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the London Underground article; most of these bits of trivia could be worked into the text in an encyclopedic way.--Gloriamarie 01:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The encyclopedic information is in the other articles, this can be deleted as it is indiscriminate information. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection. Crazysuit 03:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good job on moving the encyclopedic stuff out of this article and into more appropriate places. The problem is that deleting this outright would be in violation of GFDL requirements which say that attribution must be provided, but it is clear that the page should no longer exist as a separate article now that the wheat has been harvested and we are left with the chaffe. Redirect to London Underground statistics (which looks like to contain a large chunk of what used to be here) just to preserve history. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the catch. I agree, redirecting is necessary, but to the closing admin - be sure to note in the redirect edit summary that it was redirected in accordance with this discussion, so it doesn't get recreated. Calliopejen1 19:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a good example of the truly nonsensical stuff that sometimes accumulates in trivia sections and articles. Of course, its only the residue of what was once here--and was encyclopedic, and has now been moved to better places. I congratulate Calliopejen1 on an excellent patient job. As a comment: at the previous AfD is June, I said I usually !voted to delete trivia articles. And so I did at the time, because the ones nominated up to that point were in general well worth the deletion. Many originally good projects on WP and off become unreasonable if carried to extremes. DGG (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Finally. Good to see various parts being merged, there should not be pages with "trivia" in the titles. Dannycali 19:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's little even worth merging. The late Robert L. Ripley wrote that there are a few people who have an insight into information that is of interest to everyone else... and this isn't one of them. Some stations only have access stairs, one has more escalators than any other, one is the only one that has the letter "z" in its name... the difference between "trivia" and "trivial" is whether someone says "That's interesting." and "Oh, how about that." Mandsford 23:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. The article survived three discussions already (with keeps), the last one only a couple months ago. Obviously, there is a good segment of the community who reads and wants to edit this article. Merging would be an acceptable compromise. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, the fact that the cult following of people that like useless info bombarded previous AFDs is not a reason to keep this article. If a "good segment" of 10 people or so really care about this trivia, then they can create their own website. The relevant info has been merged, this article should be gone. Dannycali 17:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep~~ as per my comments on the 3rd AfD, although agreed it could be renamed London Underground Statistics or suchlike. A1octopus 00:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, having seen that the important information has been moved to an article called London Underground statistics already, I now change my vote to Delete with a recommendation that we move the "stations" and "miscellany" sections to that page. A1octopus 00:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the rump of an article is comprised of non-notable original research. --Gavin Collins 09:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a prime example of what wikipedia is not, or at least, what it should not be if more people were aware of the wikipedia trivia policies. "St John's Wood is the only station, the name of which contains none of the letters of the word 'mackerel' "..I mean.. come on!Dr bab 09:28, 19 September 2007 (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.