Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Track access controller: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:34, 28 April 2008

Revision as of 13:58, 28 April 2008

Line 13:

*'''Keep or merge''' The main 'sin' is the lack of sources to back-up the content. Whether the article should remain stand-alone or be merged-in with one of the other [[London Underground]] articles is another matter. Either way, the content is worth retaining. [[User:EdJogg|EdJogg]] ([[User talk:EdJogg|talk]]) 12:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

*'''Strong Keep''' IsI strongltstrongly object to articles being put up for deletion WITHOUT prior discussion on the talk page. The only sin this article has committed is that it has failed to add any references. At the very least the content should be merged ... which again should have been discussed on the talk page.[[User:Olana North|Olana North]] ([[User talk:Olana North|talk]]) 13:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' While I suspect that sources could be found to write a decent article on the subject, a lot of the current content is very poor indeed. The sins go well beyond a simple lack of sources: there's a great deal of unattributed opinion, much of which seems designed to puff up the importance of the job. "''The post of Track Access Controller is highly sought after...''", "''If you are ever stranded in the morning due to "overrunning of engineering work" you can be sure that a Track Access Controller somewhere is working hard to get the problem resolved for you''", "''Between them they have a wealth and breadth of knowledge that is the envy of other London Underground departments''" and numerous other examples. Merging this sort of material is a bad idea... if it is kept it would need to be severely pruned if not cleaned up quickly. '''[[User:Iain99|Iain99]]'''^{[[User talk:Iain99|Balderdash]] and [[Special:Contributions/Iain99|piffle]]} 13:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

*:[Comment] OK, so some of the wording is poor, granted, it is unlinked and barely categorised, but the 'main' sin remains the lack of sources. A little rewording could easily change this from unsourced POV to unsourced content (:o)): "''T~ A~ C~ positions attract large numbers of applicants''", "''A T~A~C~ is responsible for managing engineering over-runs and minimising consequent delays.''", "''a T~A~C~ requires a knowledge of the entire Underground network''", etc. However much pruning might be required, merging is greatly preferable to deleting, and the unpruned version gives other editors greater scope for filling in the detail appropriately. [[User:EdJogg|EdJogg]] ([[User talk:EdJogg|talk]]) 13:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)