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 merge to Quito Metro. I realize that some content might already have been merged during the discussion but Merge appears to be the consensus here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Quito Metro stations[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

List of unclear necessity. All of the stations listed here are already listed in the head article as it is, meaning that this is just a content fork reduplicating content we already have in another article. And all of the stations listed here exist solely as redirects back to the same head article, with absolutely none of them having their own separate standalone articles about the stations themselves -- which means it's a list with only one outbound target, because every single link in the list is going to the same place.
Furthermore, even if the stations did have their own articles, the head article could just directly link to them as it is — the article isn't particularly long even with the list of stations already embedded in it, so the list doesn't need to be spun off to its own standalone page on article size management grounds.
There's just no pressing need for this to be its own separate topic, if the exact same information is already present in the parent article anyway. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Ecuador. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. This nomination is really ridiculous. I already said elsewhere that I will create the article page starting from tomorrow, meaning the nomination argument is invalid. Moreover, the content duplication fork is invalid as well, we do have list of metro stations for pretty much every system, and nobody ever complains. If you are unhappy, remove it from the article, or even include it to the article as a section. There are literally zero reason to delete the list. Ymblanter (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We most certainly do not routinely have a standalone "list of metro stations" as a separate topic from "System" for every metro system that exists — we do that if the system's article is long enough to need splitouts for size management purposes, and if that's not the case then we just list the stations in the main article instead of their own separate list. This, additionally, is supported solely by the system's own self-published primary source content about itself, which is not an independent or notability-supporting source at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This last statement is incorrect. Urbanrail is independent of the Quito Metro, I am not even sure how you got the idea it is affiliated with this system. Concerning this first statement, I doubt it is correct, and if it is we should have a policy stating this. Ymblanter (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect unless significantly expanded. Currently there is nothing in the list article that isn't in the main article other than the opening date, but that can (and probably should) be fixed by adding the single sentence "All stations were opened on 21 December 2022.". The list does not currently overwhelm the main article either, so unless the list is significantly expanded such that it would overwhelm the system article (and with just 15 stations, even coordinates and an image for each station would not do that) there is no need to split-out the list. However the title is a very likely search term so it should be redirected to the section of the main article - Quite Metro#System. Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect When Quito Metro is as short as it is, there is no basis whatsoever for a separate page to list the stations. If that's significantly expanded, a split would be welcome when warranted. With just one line, it should still be easy to keep in the main page. Reywas92^Talk 14:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Quito Metro. There is absolutely no reason for a separate list, this only serves to fragment the information and make the reader chase links. // Timothy :: talk 11:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Quito Metro. This would indeed be the best place for this list. TH1980 (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect into Quito Metro. I have copied the sole ref in the article to the target. Now nothing needs salvaging and the article should be redirected. gidonb (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, the list already contains two links to the station pages, and the article does not contain any. Ymblanter (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter, thank you for pointing this out! I saw even three stations. Now linked from the main article. gidonb (talk) 11:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after Merge — since the content is a fork, there's no reason to keep the history in a redirect. All content has already been merged.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If some content has been merged, it by definition was not a fork. Deleting even the redirect would be a violation of my right as an author. Ymblanter (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2023 (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.