User:Johntex/Proposal

Article Move / Merge Proposal

I propose:

(1) We create a new article titled Houston METRORail Memorandum Controversy

(2) We move the content from Houston_Chronicle#Light_Rail_memorandum_controversy to that page and leave only a sentence or two there to point to the new main article. This is advantageous because:

(2.1) The overall Houston Chronicle article is unbalanced because there is more information about a few controversies concerning the paper than the paper itself - however, the paper is not famous for these controversies so this is misleading.

(2.2) This controversy is largely or completely a thing of the past and to keep it occupying such a prominent position on the main article of an ongoing business concern is particularly unencyclopedic.

(3) We move the content from Texans for Public Transportation to Houston METRORail Memorandum Controversy and delete Texans for Public Transportation. I believe Texans for Public Transportation is not sufficiently notable to merit an article here because:

(3.1) The group was a single purpose organization, organized for a particular purpose in 2003

(3.2) They have not had a wide impact nor achieved sufficient notability to merit their own article, as evidenced in part by the low number of hits found by searching for "Texans for Public Transportation" on Google (0)[1], Altavista (4 - including 1 at Wikipedia)[2]. I know Rangerdude does not like Google counts, but it is completely reasonable to conclude that a PAC in this Internet-driven era that gets only 4 hits did not achieve much impact.

(3.3) Due to their small impact, there is little we can say about them. What we can say about them is really relevant to one specific controversy concerning METRORail

(3.4) They do not have any presence today so they are not likely to get more interesting in the future.

(4) We move the content from Texans for True Mobility and delete Texans for True Mobility. My reasoning is similar to Texans for Public Transportation. Although Texans for True Mobility does have an active web page, and is slightly better known (237 hits on Google[3], 264 on Altavista[4]), that is still a paltry number of hits for an organization striving to make an impact on events in one of the America's largest cities. There does not seem to be anything that needs to be said about them that cannot be covered in the new article I am proposing.

I look forward to your feedback. Thank you. Johntex 23:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am of the belief that for the time being we should work out the remaining issues on the Houston Chronicle page before merging any article or moving them to a second page. Right now that may only complicate things further, though in the future it may be an option. Furthermore, there is more to be said about TTM and TPT than the Houston Chronicle memorandum issue. IOW, some of the information currently present on this article does not neatly fit into an article specific to the Houston Chronicle. Thus I would propose (1) an article specifically on the Chronicle's memo scandal and (2) an article on the METRORail expansion campaign of 2003 with subsections containing the info on TTM and TPT and redirects from TTM/TTP to the respective locations in that article. Again, I do not think it is yet timely to start this reorganization with other things unresolved though so hold off for the moment. Rangerdude 01:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that Johntex's idea is sound. My only suggestion would be to broaden the title to cover the election. So maybe just Houston METRORail Controversy. That would cover the areas that Rangerdude also wants to add which go beyond the Chronicle memorandum. -Willmcw 15:03, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

I think the proposal itself exposes a little bias. This proposal only makes sense if the Chron's memo is the only slimy element from the entire Metro referendum. Unfortunately practically every player involved with the MetroRail referendum had secret backers or disingenuous interests. As litigation continues more and more names are coming out and the real story is emerging. I humbly propose that we keep all of the pages around and update them as their roles become more clear. I have just updated Texans for True Mobility showing the Delay PAC involvement. I am sure more will be coming out as Delay goes to trial. Dothivalla 15:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that the proposal has merit. Creating a new Title for the controversies would help clean up the article and give it a more Encyclopedic feel to it. My only other suggestion would be to try to give boarding and crash numbers to show what improvements are being made. I was tempted to take care of it myself. :) --Hourick 00:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)