Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Street tram stop

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect‎ to Tramlink. I started writing this as an apologetic "no consensus" close, but that made less sense as I wrote the rationale, so redirect it is. My read of the arguments here is that the delete/redirect arguments have the upper hand in terms of being policy-focused and on topic; with no strong reason to delete the page history, and the broader discussion ongoing, redirect as WP:ATD seems most appropriate. However, my read of the discussion is that AfD isn't the right place to handle this broader issue collaboratively. I suggest that editors try to work out the notability of each stop in this line on the talk page of the main Tramlink article, redirecting all that are found to be non-notable, and only bringing individual stops to AfD if the discussion really breaks down. asilvering (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Street tram stop

[edit]

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

George Street tram stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Train stations are not automatically notable and need to meet WP:GNG. This individual tram stop which is simply a raised piece of concrete where trams stop does not meet WP:GNG. Both sources are primary and do not establish notability. AusLondonder (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, tricky one. I agree that "a raised piece of concrete" appears not to be notable. However I see from the Tramlink article that every stop on the system has a blue link. Are we proposing to delete all of these? I would also imagine that there are many railway stations (or "halts") around the world which have minimal infrastructure, but nevertheless have their own article. To give an example, the tram stops listed in List of Manx Electric Railway stations each have their own article, despite having minimal infrastructure and much less traffic than the Croydon Tramlink (and the Manx rolling stock being more flimsy than that in Croydon). Ehrenkater (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE. If you find other non-notable articles, please nominate them for deletion. Please assess this AfD on its own merits. If this AfD results in a consensus to delete/redirect then we can do that for other non-notable Croydon stops. AusLondonder (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Manx Electric Railway has been around a century longer than Tramlink, so there are plenty of books about the history of the system that are used as sources in the articles about it. I suspect it'll take a few more decades for Tramlink to be in that situation... Adam Sampson (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then you should be voting for Merge or Redirect (and you can do so with the stated intent of pending the result of that other discussion), not vote Keep without actually presenting a Keep argument for notability of the subject matter. SilverserenC 23:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. Hopefully closing admin will disregard keep votes without valid rationale. The clear community-wide consensus is that rail infrastructure must meet GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 06:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I should not be !voting for something different to what I believe to be the best outcome for readers of the encyclopaedia: That keeping these articles in their present state until the outcome of such a discussion concludes how best to present information on this set of closely related subjects. Recommending merge or redirect implies a preference for redirection or merging somewhere now and then possibly demerged or merged elsewhere after the discussion concludes. That would be significantly more disruptive for everyone, possibly more work for editors, and bring no benefits to readers. Thryduulf (talk) 09:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find any indication of notability from available sources. I hope someone can present some at some point, but none are evident currently. The closer should remember that AfD discussions are about determining notability of a subject matter and not about discussions of Merging or Redirecting (though those can be outcomes of AfD discussions). Thus, any Keep votes that don't make an actual argument of notability on policy grounds needs be disregarded when determining the outcome of the AfD. SilverserenC 23:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. It's a plausible search term so deletion should be off the table and I'm disappointed to see this here rather than a broader discussion about these articles as a group. Nonetheless, although the system is clearly notable and some stops on it may be, the majority do not appear to have significant third-party coverage so a list of stops is preferable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have struck my comment. Based on the discussion with the nominator below, it is clear that this is a bad-faith nomination in an attempt to "win" an argument elsewhere and not one genuinely concerned with assessing the notability (or otherwise) of the subject. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @HJ Mitchell: I'm really surprised and disappointed by you casting aspersions on me. You are absolutely wrong. I have no objection to a broader discussion although I'm frankly not convinced the London transport project is the best place for an unbiased review. AusLondonder (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I assumed a lot of good faith in the discussion at WT:N and the early stages of this discussion because I thought we were working towards a shared goal, assessing the notability of these tram stops and deciding what to do with the articles if the GNG is not met—not getting rid of them by whatever means necessary, including nominating an article that will at worst be merged or redirected at Articles for Deletion. The London Transport project seems like the best place to find editors who may have sources. So far, none containing significant coverage of individual stops have been found so the discussion is moving on to the mechanics of redirecting, so the result is likely to be more-or-less the same but without wasting everyone's time with 30-something AfDs and after looking for sources. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the article on the broader system. Does not appear notable on its own. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now Coverage wise there is some from this book about the tram system Croydon Tramlink.
It is likely not enough for straight GNG pass, but I'm voting keeping mainly as I agree with the other keep voters that removing a single article with no plans on how to deal with the rest of the system causes more problems than it solves, as it ends up no one does the work of cleaning up the other articles and we have a navigational & consistency gap. I note that a bundled AfD does not have to be a "review every station or do nothing", it is perfectly fine to evaluate sections of the system at a time (looking at the map, one good starting "set" could be the stations from Lloyd Park to New Addington). If I was voting on a bundled AfD I would of voted to make a listicle instead of keeping.
That aside, if one of the delete !voters volunteers to complete the job of evaluating the rest of the stations and making changes as needed then feel free to automatically convert my vote to Merge to List of Tramlink stops (with redirect to Tramlink as interm target) Jumpytoo Talk 01:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have to start somewhere. We can't keep saying "yes, I know it fails every notability requirement but keep because we have hundreds of other articles that also fail those requirements". That's not a serious argument. AusLondonder (talk) 06:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder so let's have a discussion about the articles as a group. I agree with you that it's likely we'll end up merging/redurecting the majority of them but surely it makes more sense to do it from one central discussion than relitigating the same question 39 times? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't do a group nomination because those often become unmanageable disasters. I was also keeping in mind that at Wikipedia talk:Notability several editors have claimed that some tram stops may be notable and that each team stop should be assessed individually. AusLondonder (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like circular reasoning to me (something you've been quick to accuse others of), and a deliberate misrepresentation of what has actually been said at WT:N. That's very disappointing. I was hoping for a good-faith discussion that would critically evaluate these articles and that the result would be apparent from that evaluation, not for a discussion where one editor tries to force through their preferred decision based on a subjective opinion of importance. I guess I'll go and start that discussion somewhere and follow it where it leads; I want no further part of this AfD. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you so angry? I was literally told that some tram stops are notable and others are not, which I accepted in good faith. From the discussion at WT:N Tram stops are more complicated than railway stations - some are notable, some aren't and they need to be assessed individually. These comments were explicitly agreed with by several editors. How on earth am I misrepresenting that? AusLondonder (talk) 08:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a valid argument, per WP:OSE: It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point and In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items. If you want to pierce the argument I am currently making, there needs to at the very least a promise to do such evaluation to show that what OSE allows is not the case. Jumpytoo Talk 17:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE is an essay. It has exactly zero policy weight in any deletion discussion. Especially when you ignore the entire rest of the OSE section to cherry-pick something that has little relevance to what is being discussed. We are explicitly not discussing something that has clear notability for the vast majority of members. That is specifically something that has not been showcased or presented in any manner. In fact, the notability of really any tram stop has not been presented, let alone the majority of them. SilverserenC 18:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This AfD is for this particular topic's suitability as a standalone. Local consensuses at wikiprojects do not override P&Gs, and the broader question of "how to treat the Croydon Tramlink stops" is totally irrelevant to whether this stop meets notability guidelines. Any pseudo-navigational purpose of this article is fulfilled with a redirect to Tramlink#Routes so it doesn't even sound like a "discussion" about Croydon Tramlink stops would offer a single reason to retain any of these articles anyway. JoelleJay (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
is simply a raised piece of concrete where trams stop is harsh and uncollaborative. Cremastra (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry the feelings of the poor defenseless tram stop were so hurt by calling it what it is. But perhaps considering things a little more impersonally would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Available sources do not prove notability for this individual tram stop, so a separate article is not needed - hence I'm not recommending keep. A redirect to a List of Tramlink stops article would be my preferred solution but if and until one is created, a redirect to the line is a valid AtD. Rupples (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see the 2023 RfC as preventing this AfD from continuing. And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gravel Hill tram stop had less participation than this AfD already has, so it can certainly not be used as precedent-setting to overrule this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:18, 11 October 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/George_Street_tram_stop&oldid=1251899945"