Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Paul's tram stop (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. ★MESSED ROCKER★ 21:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St Paul's tram stop (2nd nomination)[edit]

St Paul's tram stop was nominated for AfD in August 2006 and the result was no consensus. User:Lewisskinner PRODded the article, citing WP:NOT a directory and indiscriminate collection of information. I'm bringing that article and others that were prodded as part of the Midland Metro for AfD because of the prior discussion. I believe that tram stops are not as notable as railway stations but more so than bus stops. As these articles don't seem to have been developed from the prior AfD discussion, I will say delete, or perhaps merge to Midland Metro for that article to incorporate station locations and other station notes. Tinlinkin 20:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. The articles are no bigger than the former articles of Supertram or NET, many of which were prod-ed recently (by me) and one is under AfD. They are nothing more than raised platforms. I highly recommend a read of Supertram discussion, in which I was pesuaded that individual articles are not worthwile. L.J.Skinner_WOT?|^CONTRIBS 21:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of these articles are sourced only to a rail fan's personal web site, so they lack any reliable source. Even if they were all sourced to the website of the governmental transport authority, they would still lack sources to show they are notable in any way. Multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources are needed. It would be better to mention the tram lines in an article on the cities they serve, and link to the official website to allow readers to see a transit map and check hours of service and frequency. Wikipedia is not a list of random things, and little is accomplished by filling it with copies of external databases. Edison 22:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge probably not worth individual articles, but no reason to lose the information.--Doc^g 23:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the transit system per Doc. I tried actually merging St. Paul's in with the Midland Metro station list for line 1 and found that next to impossible since the list is generated by a template, so if anyone can figure out how, that would be nice. (That is one good reason not to use templates for body text.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed the station listing from a template to a wikitable. You should now be able to incorporate all the station notes you want. Tinlinkin 02:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created Priestfield tram stop whilst trying to sort out the disambiguation page Priestfield (which had four incoming links for the tram stop). I don't have any more information I could add to improve the article. CarolGray 08:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense, but in the Priestfield disambig, the link to Midland Metro would have been sufficent. But I see how you created Priestfield tram stop when you looked at all the other tram stops. Tinlinkin 02:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was intending on expanding these article however my main source has appeared to have disappeared off the net. - Erebus555 11:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the following as these are on sites of former GWR railway stations between Snow Hill station and Wolverhampton Lower Level until they were shut down in the 1970s:
  - Soho Benson Road tram stop
  - Handsworth Booth Street tram stop
  - West Bromwich Central tram stop
  - Dudley Street Guns Village tram stop (was not a station however is on the former line)
  - Wednesbury Great Western Street tram stop
  - The Crescent tram stop (was not a station however is on the former line)
- Also Keep because it is the terminus for the Midland Metro:
  - Wolverhampton St Georges tram stop
- Delete the others. - Erebus555 11:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This would probably add only one or two sentences. Unless you are able to expand these articles into at least a good-sized paragraph, into a justifiable stub, I think the status of a former railway station or even terminal would not be enough to save from deletion. And as most of the nominated articles are a cut-and-paste of: "Tram stop name is a tram stop in [location]. It was opened in 1999 and is situated on Midland Metro Line 1.", it is better to recreate the articles into something worth reading than to keep these uninspiring single-sentence statements. Tinlinkin 02:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep those stations mentioned by Erebus555; redirect others to Midland Metro, as valid search terms.Eludium-q36 19:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment simply being on a former heavy rail line does not make them worth keeping. There is still little that can be expanded upon about the tram stop as is. Again, citing Sheffield articles, the tram stops on former heavy rail are not listed, but the old stations are (see Attercliffe Station for example). Is this a better possibility? It would only need a rail enthusiast or two to create easily expandable stubs. please also see this. L.J.Skinner_WOT?|^CONTRIBS 02:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Doc glasgow. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 02:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR. The nominator beat me to this series of deletions, as I was looking for a change after deleting over 500 articles on radio and TV masts. Admittedly, some of these tram stop stubs were created in the last 4 months, but others are over a year old and still without meaningful content, and I don't see why we should give anyone time to see if these will grow. Unlike the the railway network, the above subjects are about as notable as bus-stops and telephone booths, and I defy anyone to find reliable articles primarily dedicated to each of these in conformity with WP:N. a "Mergeall" to Midland Metro would be acceptable. Ohconfucius 04:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all or merge per Doc. See my reasoning at Wikipedia talk:Places of local interest#Railway stations. There's nothing indiscriminate about having articles concerning all stations of a specific railway system. That's an objective criterion, and the information within directly concerns the matter at hand. I'm also concerned that the nominator is on some kind of deletionist crusade. Deletion isn't valuable in itself and shouldn't be a goal in itself. Mackensen (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you are referring to L.J.Skinner, the original prodder of these articles, not me. I am the nominator of this AfD, and I didn't say the articles are indiscriminate. I am part of a transportation WikiProject and have created articles about railway stations myself. Whenever I do, however, I try not to create such articles containing one sentence only, as is the case with most of these articles (especially the ones closer to Wolverhampton). I have no problem with expansion and recreation. Although I could, I would prefer to leave that task to somebody who is more familiar with the area. I said I was partial to a merge/redirect, and that may now be my preference in light of all the discussion. Finally, I don't say "delete" in many articles, certainly rarely (if ever) in transportation articles, and I don't have the inclination to target articles that may violate WP:NOT as some other users do. Tinlinkin 23:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This was debated in full last August. We now have articles for every passenger station in Britain (excluding preserved lines), and these locations are stations, not bus-stops or equivalent. – Tivedshambo (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2007 (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.