Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Affluence (KCR)

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 for delete, though there seems to be a growing consensus for possibly merging all into one article. Please discuss that on the article talk pages. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Affluence (KCR)

Batch nomination of all the above transport stubs I stumbled across. These were mostly created in January 2005. These are light rail stops, and are only a little more noticeable than bus stops. These are a pretty indiscriminate articles, most of them contain not much more info than "[Station] is a station on Hong Kong's KCR Light Rail. It belongs to Zone [zone] for single-ride ticket. This station consists of [number of] platforms, and is situated on [road 1] near to its junction with [road 2], and serves [placename]. Routes : [route number] [start point] to [destination]". Also, most of these names are made up by KCR and do not correspond to any recognised districts which would allow us to merge per WP:LOCAL. I do not feel they are encylopaedic, as none of them have any sources to show how/why they may pass WP:N. Wikipedia whould be better served by improvements to KCR Light Rail and/or List of Hong Kong KCR stations. Furthermore, wikipedia is not a travel guide. Delete. Ohconfucius 06:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all per nomination, wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. An admirable attempt, but far too specific to meet notability requirements. wtfunkymonkey 07:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - is there any difference between these articles and stuff like Category:Yellow Line (Washington Metro) or Category:Railway stations in Glasgow? We have a long history of keeping this sort of "indiscriminate" collection of information, and besides for the length of the articles, I'm not seeing any difference between transport articles of the US/UK and the ones nominated here (besides for the obvious - there is little chance that any editors on the English wiki care enough to write anything substantial about rail stops in Hong Kong). --- RockMFR 07:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should note that the two categories I picked were not at random - the Washington Metro cat contains lots of articles that would be easy to source, and the Glasgow cat contains Jordanhill railway station (the millionth article), along with a bunch of other stations nobody would normally give a damn about. --- RockMFR 07:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is that rail fandom seems to know no bounds. ;-) Ohconfucius 07:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom. There's no Transit Wiki at this time, which would be more appropriate - but Wikipedia is not the proper home, nor is it a way point for it. --Dennisthe2 07:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all with hearty kudos to Ohconfucius for taking the time and effort to clean up this travelcruft. Eusebeus 08:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment A number of templates exist that are primarily or solely used by these pages: {{KCRCStations}}, for a start, not to mention all of Cat:Hong Kong rail succession templates (and others). Keep in mind if this goes through. –Unint 09:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge all - no need to loose the info. Boring but not unverifiable.--Doc^g 09:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all, I don't see the point of having such articles in an encyclopedia. Thanks to OhConfucius for the good work he does in removing lots of crufty articles... Fram 10:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge all per Doc glasgow. Verifiable (well, in Chinese anyway, and in English as well when we have people who can translate form Chinese) by looking at the light rail map. Light rail stations are about as stable, permanent and notable as subway stations. But articles which only say "X is a station on Y line between X-1 station and X+1 station" don't merit separate articles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment My sentiments exactly. Perhaps I should have been more specific and said that WP:V was not at issue. Ohconfucius 01:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge all per other users' comments.--Hadžija 17:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all Sjakkalle is correct in noting that light rail stops are far more notable then bus stops, because the route of the later can easily be changed while light rail lines require permanent infrastructure and (usually) platforms. However, these stops are far less significant(and often more frequent) then regular railway stations, and thus could be more efficiently combined article absent the development of further information in individual articles. Thus, as an alternative, I would support a "Merge all." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danntm (talk • contribs) 18:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
• Delete all This set of articles offers the same info in a less useful form than could be obtained from the source transit authority at [1], and such a spew of articles becomes instantly stale and out of date. Transit systems are subject to change, and there is no mechanism to detect when a platform is taken out of service or added. A transportation network is better represented by the transit system's own map, timetable, and fare guide than by a Wikipedia copy in the form of a linked set of articles. The individual stops of a light rail system are not much more notable than an equivalent set of bus stops. There is no automatic gimme just because someone chooses to make articles about them. None of them appear to have been the subject of multiple independent, verifiable and reliable sources, because they just are not that notable. Edison 18:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per WP:NOT. I wouldn't necessarily object to merging these all into one big list either, although finding reliable sources might be a problem. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep all. No problem with articles of this sort. Fg2 01:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If these get deleted then I think thousands of articles will have to. There are articles for almost every train station in existance. having said that all of them fail to be notible so I would tend towards delete.--Dacium 07:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All if they are equivalent to metros or train stations. Delete if they're buses. Metro/train stations are notable, I would hate for the London Underground stations to be deleted given that I use those articles as a reader frequently including the Docklands Light Rail. MLA 11:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All Please take a look in Chinese station articles. If anyone agree, I could do my best to provide extra information in the Chinese Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia articles. I hope Wikipedia could improve by providing more information, not by deleting more articles.Peterwhy 08:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I have linked up some of the chinese articles to the english ones, but am finding that these contain very similar bits of info to each other. You may have to look elsewhere for more information to add. Many of the stops are named after housing estates which, are not notable by default per previous discussions. I would venture this was a best case merge per WP:LOCAL, meaning we would have articles for said non-notable housing estates by extension of that logic. However, I am meeting some resistance with that course of action. Ohconfucius 09:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep all per my previous comments, Sjakkalle's comments, and prior precedent for other stations. Of course, keep can be interpreted as merge if the editors of the articles care to do so. --- RockMFR 16:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all. Rail stations are notable and WP precendent agrees with that. These aren't bus stops. --Oakshade 22:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. They are bit of a hybrid, and precedence seems to indicate default non-notability of bus stops. Light rail stations are only slightly more than bus stops, with an elevated platform, shelter, and no formal access controls. Unlike the Docklands Light Rail, this system serves what could be considered "semi-urban areas", linking 3 of the more densely populated centres in the New Territories. As already mentioned, some of the "stations" take their names from housing estates which they serve, and so many of the place names (Affluence, Butterfly Goodview Garden, etc) which are not recognised as districts. Ohconfucius 03:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Light rail stations are distinguishable from bus stops because light rails stations can not be as readily changed. However, what troubles me is that "light rail" is a nebulous classification, that can range from grade-separated, third rail powered lines with high level platforms, like the Docklands Light Rail and Norristown High Speed Line, serving only semi-urban line, to tram lines running down city streets.-- danntm ^T _C 15:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or merge all. Just don't see any encyclopedic value. --Fang Aili ^talk 00:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge all. This may be satisfactory as a list, but not as individual articles. -- Donald Albury 15:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge all per other users comments. Jerry lavoie 01:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

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.