Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of King County Metro facilities

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of King County Metro facilities[edit]

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

Cruft verging on advertising. Most sources link to news reports/planning permission reports etc, no need for this on Wikipedia. Rather than have its own article, most of this can be summarised in KCM's own article. Nightfury 09:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of secondary newspaper sources for most of these facilities, which could be added in an expansion; some are even notable enough to pass GNG as independent articles. Even the maintenance bases have well-documented coverage in The Seattle Times from the time of their construction (with considerable neighborhood opposition) that could be incorporated. The tables are kept out of the main article to keep clutter down, since they take up a lot of space. Sounder Bruce 09:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As it is, SounderBruce, to me it looks like a bunch of buildings with addresses, most of them don't show how they are important. If you think they are through the sources, can you expand them? As is however, like I said in the main summary the most notable ones can be mentioned in the same article. Regarding your term "clutter", there is no such thing in my eyes, if it is properly sourced. I will agree however that tables on the main subject page are inappropriate. Thanks Nightfury 10:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into adding more content, but trying to save two articles from AfD at once is a hard ask. Next time, can you space out related nominations? Sounder Bruce 00:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - What is this advertising? The existence of a bus depot? Thank you for trying to improve the encyclopedia, but this isn't doing so. JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Most (if not all) of the bases are not inherently notable and use routine coverage or primary sources merely to prove they exist. Any salvageable content should be merged to the parent article King County Metro. Ajf773 (talk) 08:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Counter point: there's news coverage beyond mere mentions, not to mention the articles from the planning process (which is well covered in this city). Most of the content (tables with images) cannot be placed in the main article without going beyond reasonable length (of the page). Sounder Bruce 08:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A core concept on Wikipedia is to write in summary style and that means that some readers only need a quick summary (the lede), some need a moderate amount of information (a set of multiparagraph sections), and some readers need a lot of details (links to full-sized separate subarticles). For that reason, this subarticle is an important part of the King County Metro article, letting some readers do a "deep-dive" and get lots of details without cluttering the main page. While the page may need improvements, it should be kept. --RickyCourtney (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- many entries have stand-alone articles; useful for navigation. Appropriate under WP:LISTN. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:51, 3 February 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.