Deletion of Toronto rapid transit signals

Comment: No general reader would be interested''" is probably true of the vast majority of our articles, and a dubious argument against deletion.  (It's a sort of privileged ''I-believe-it's-unimportant-so-everyone-must-believe-the-same-thing'' variation on the theme of .)  There's presumably a small but active Toronto railfan community &ndash; as there is in any major city &ndash; who actually find this sort of thing ''quite'' interesting, thank you very much.Merging wouldn't make sense, as the diagrams and images which convey the useful central information in this article &ndash; the photos of signals and diagrams of the different signal indications &ndash; would take up a rather overwhelming amount of space in the already-beefy Toronto rapid transit article.  Indeed, this is a textbook case of a situation where a detailed |sub-article is appropriately used to provide detail that isn't necessary in the associated main article.(It's also worth comparing with Automation of the New York City Subway to get an idea of where a sub-article like this could evolve in the future
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:SUBARTICLE)

Comment: A functional  of Toronto rapid transit
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article size (WP:SUBARTICLE)

Comment: or '''merge'''. This almost reads like unsourced ancruft (and is unlikely to ever be more than very minimally sourced). It's also at a level of detail totally unnecessary for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Bottom line: Not notable enough for its own encyclopedia article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Non-free content (WP:F)

Comment: I agree with the above. We have a vast constellation of articles like this in the railway signalling by country/city category structure. It's too detailed to go into main articles and would seem to be a valid content fork. What's more Toronto's mass transit system is of sufficient size and notability. The article reads like a mass of  and that's where I'd start, at least with a maintenance tag or two
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)