Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Line (Pittsburgh)

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. Blue Line – Library and Blue Line – South Hills Village merged to replace DAB. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Line (Pittsburgh)

See also: User talk:Hoof Hearted § Blue Line (Pittsburgh)

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

This is a "duplicate" disambiguation page per WP:INCOMPDAB. Both entries at this dab can also be found at Blue Line, which makes this one unnecessary. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why can't people stop throwing around WP:ACRONYMS and use a little common sense? If someone searches for Blue Line (Pittsburgh) they are looking for either (or both) Blue Line – Library or/and Blue Line – South Hills Village — NOT another disambiguation page. (And chances are they already know that Pittsburgh is in Pennsylvania.) We eliminate double redirects, so why the insistence on creating a double-disambiguation?
Now, if someone were to propose merging Blue Line – Library and Blue Line – South Hills Village into Blue Line (Pittsburgh), then I would whole-heartedly support that. Useddenim (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense is WP:INCOMPDAB. We don't just create editing guidelines for no reason. It's just as easy for someone searching for "Blue Line (Pittsburgh)" to be taken to a section at Blue Line that lists both Pittsburgh Blue Lines (see: Blue Line#Pennsylvania.) -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is already covered by the Blue Line disambiguation page. There is no reason for this to de-disambiguate.--Rpclod (talk) 03:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blue Line#Pennsylvania. I agree with Tavix's comment above. This gives the reader the information they are looking for, without violating the guidelines at WP:INCOMPDAB. It takes them directly to a section with only three entries, so readers won't be bogged down either. Rpclod, Useddenim and Tavix, is this something you could support? Boleyn (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Useddenim (talk) 09:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Boleyn's suggestion is ok. --Rpclod (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn, that's what I've been advocating this whole time. Check out the history of that page. It's been merged before, by me, BD2412 and Hoof Hearted and every time it was reverted. I figured taking it here would be the best place to get a binding solution. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and section-redirect to Blue Line, as with all WP:INCOMPDAB cases. Also, admin-protect the resulting Blue Line (Pittsburgh) redirect to avoid future disruptions of consensus. bd2412 T 13:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of transparency, I must note that I was asked by Useddenim to come here to see if he's out of line. That being said, my initial reaction was to agree with Boleyn, but after looking at the two pages listed in this disambiguation, the only thing that makes sense is to keep and merge both pages into Blue Line (Pittsburgh). Blue Line – Library and Blue Line – South Hills Village cover the same rail line but are split based on the southern terminals. There's nowhere near enough information on either to warrant standalone articles. Yes, Blue Line (Pittsburgh) shouldn't be a disambiguation page; it should be the companion page for Red Line (Pittsburgh) on the Blue Line. Lost on Belmont ^3200N_1000W (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That could be a nice compromise. I added this to the transportation delsort to see if we can get some more opinions regarding this proposal. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So the consensus is to merge Blue Line – Library and Blue Line – South Hills Village into Blue Line (Pittsburgh)? Useddenim (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this would be a reasonable compromise. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, then someone needs to add a {{merge}} tag to those pages… Useddenim (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged. Lost on Belmont ^3200N_1000W (talk) 12:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm late on this, but I also vote to Merge and section-redirect to Blue Line (Pittsburgh). That page shouldn't be a dab, and there's enough material for both on one page. If I could decide which version to add first, I'd do it myself right now, and boldly remove the deletion tag. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, redirects and dab pages are cheap. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay, I just made a test edit for the merge. I know there was stuff left behind from the dab version, but otherwise let me know what you think of it. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It works for me. Useddenim (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fine. Anyone else? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - UPDATE - I just went ahead and did it anyway. If anyone wants to fix anything there, feel free to do so. In the meantime, I'll just change the classes of the two article to redirect. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to close

Okay, the two articles have been merged into the disambiguation page. Does anybody want to close this talk page, so I can remove the deletion tag without any fear of rampaging administrators getting on my case about it? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2015 (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.