Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago card

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 of the debate was KEEP. Mo0[talk] 01:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article should be merged with article on Chicago Transit Authority, in a fare subsection. How Chicago collects its fares is not worthy of its own seperate article. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 18:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Do you plan to AFD all of the payment card articles? There are 22 in Category:Contactless smartcards. In Chicago these are important because a lawsuit has just been filed alleging racial discrimination in fares where people with Chicago Cards are paying less. I'll find a citation and add it to the article. Tedernst | talk 19:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is specific about the card, while Chicago Transit Authority needs only a summary about Chicago card. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 20:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there's enough good content here to keep it separate from Chicago Transit Authority. ×Meegs 21:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - for reasons stated above. --ScienceApologist 23:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Normally I would be strongly inclined to vote to merge this back into the CTA article, but the lawsuit where Chicago Cards are central convinces me that these are, for the moment, notable. Is there really gonna be a WikiProject:Smartcards? (Sigh.) Keep in agreement with the above Keeps. Barno 00:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per arguments above, and make WCityMike remove external links from his signature. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-11 03:39Z
• Keep. Important part of a major transit authority. Too big to merge. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I just got in somewhat of a disagreement with a user in regards to the Luas smart card. First she wrote an OK article about it, then replaced it with coying and pasting what was on the Luas page to the new article. It is my opinion that to the extent possible that information regarding these smartcards should be kept in the article on the transit system, as your average person looking for information on any aspect of the XYZ bus system, will probably go to XYZ bus system page. In Chicago card case, where lawsuits are involved, and the Chicago Transit article is already large, there is an argument for a searate article. But some of these articles are either redundant with material already in the main article or make more sense merged with the original article. Many of them cross link each other, or all tell similar histories about smart cards. I am wondering if these articles are defended just because it is newfangled technology. If these were tokens would they be even considered for different articles? It is still just they way people pay their fare.--Esprit15d 16:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all of the above! -- DS1953 ^talk 03:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Kingturtle 19:54, 15 January 2006 (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.