Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Underground strikes

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

London Underground strikes

[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)

To quote February 2022 "Out of date and misleading article, unlikely to be resolvable as clearly no interest by editors". I agree with that sentiment. Has not had substantial edits since, and contents of article can clearly be folded into London Underground or other articles. Turini2 (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Turini2 (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (selectively), interesting one this, as the subject matter would generally get reasonable publicity due to the extensive usage and widespread notability of the underground. I can understand the premise of the article and would think that, with some effort, the table could be converted into prose with sections for the most noteworthy strikes and the coverage behind them. In it's current state, I don't like it and I concur with the concerns that there seems little interest to improve, but is this a reason to delete? I'd probably lean keep or at the very, very least, merge/redirect into a section of London Underground with history preservation for future development. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is clearly notable based on the amount of coverage strikes get, but this clearly isn't being kept up to date. I think it might be better recast as a list of strikes with less information, pointing to prose coverage elsewhere in articles like History of the London Underground, <year> in the United Kingdom, 2022 United Kingdom railway strikes, etc. so I guess I'm at keep and improve, but weakly. Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. So the main issue here is that no one has been willing to update the article. But I'm definitely up for it!!! I would love to have some help as it's a big task, but I'll hold off on actively canvassing for help until this discussion is closed, and maybe it makes sense to do some basic fixes first anyway before it turns into a free-for-all. (I've already started to move some of the content around that was hiding below that huge list...and will start to delete some information as well, shortly. But it's all with the intention of coming up with a better structure and working toward improvement.) Important and timely topic, and for sure, it is not a good thing that the article is so out-of-date when clearly the page is a magnet for traffic. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It has been greatly improved by User:Cielquiparle since nomination (and since the single support), but imo should never have been nominated in the first place, as the grounds given are not grounds for deletion. Johnbod (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep per Cielquiparle's immense improvements. Aza24 (talk) 05:50, 12 December 2022 (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.