Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CrossCountry network map

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 speedy keep. WP:SK#1; please open a merge discussion on the article talk page, or be bold and just do it yourself. ansh666 02:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CrossCountry network map (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The diagram is not particularly large compared to other diagrams and map images in similar articles and could easily be included in the main article CrossCountry with |collapse=1. Other than the diagram, all of the information is already included in the main article. Jc86035 (talk) 13:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• merge with parent and better still, just make a more detailed map image. Mangoe (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into main CrossCountry article - no reason for this to be a page on its own. Dunarc (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep #1 NPASR  WP:SK#1, no argument for deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep ("Merge", changed per below) I don't understand User:Unscintillating's reference to a Speedy Keep argument, "no argument for deletion". Merging is a reasonable outcome of many AFDs. Is the point that the complaint should perhaps be opened as a Merger Proposal at the Talk page, instead? Perhaps it can be argued that obtaining many outside opinions as happens in an AFD is not needed for a mere question of splitting vs. merging article content, when a given article has gotten pretty long. I take their argument as Good Faith, but I am not sure about it, as a matter of policy/guideline for how we are to proceed.

About the merits of splitting vs. merging this specific topic, the current article is titled "CrossCountry network map" but the article is not written about the map. It states that it is about the company: "CrossCountry is a train operating company that has operated Great Britain’s Cross Country rail franchise since 11 November 2007." Some transportation maps are notable and even famous, such as the NYC subway map. An article about this map should describe the process by which it was created, give credit to designers, relate to graphical precedents, etc. It seems rather that this map is content appropriate to include in the article about the network. It then may be a question whether the article is too long and needs to be split. Offhand I don't see why this material, rather than other material in the article should be split out. It would seem natural to keep the network map because it is about the entire network, and to split out something else which is detail less essential to understanding the big picture. --Doncram (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is for discussions that need admin tools.  WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT states that non-deletion discussion can be moved to the talk page by an uninvolved editor.  AfD needs to focus on the problem of worthless articles.

If the community wants a central forum for content discussions, I suggest creating the forum AfE (Articles for Editing) or AfEP (Articles for Editing Policy).  Unscintillating (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I agree that "Speedy Keep" seems justified. The nominator is not in fact advocating that the material be deleted from Wikipedia. Rather they and everyone else so far is recommending an alternative, merger. Speedy Keep applies when "The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion or redirection—perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging—and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected."

I think on the merger vs. split decision that more needs to be discussed out on the Talk page of the CrossCountry network article. If outside opinions are needed to break a deadlock, the correct process is to open an RFC, I think. I hope this is adequate guidance. --Doncram (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment FYI, this AFD is ready to be closed by anyone. It clearly meets SK criteria, and does not need to be prolonged for any reason. --Doncram (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2018 (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.