Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herdings Park supertram stop

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 delete. WjBscribe 15:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sheffield Supertram stops

Herdings Park supertram stop (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
Herdings supertram stop (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Gleadless Townend supertram stop (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Middlewood Tram Stop (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Contested prod. Sheffield supertram stops are little more than bus shelters with a slightly raised curb to allow level boarding. They were all constructed at about the same time, and so do not have individual histories. They can be (are) adequately covered by the Sheffield Supertram article. Delete-- Jeremy (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete The articles' contents do not assert their notability, nor can they as per JeremyA. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 20:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Whilst noting the recent Midland Metro AfD, I fail to understand how individual supertram stops are notable. Supertram stops are not significant structures as Jeremy has explained. It might also be worth nominating Template:Sheffield Supertram stations subject to the outcome of this AfD. Adambro 20:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Jhamez84 22:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. As someone who was born in Sheffield when it had the old trams and now live in a city with trams, and think trams are great, I utterly fail to see the notability of individual tram stops. However, please list all articles on tram stops that should be deleted. --Bduke 23:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • delete per nom, along with all articles on individual Midland Metro stops, PLEASE! L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 12:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Guys, we would also appear to have a Middlewood Tram Stop. Must this have a separate AfD, or can it be added to this one? L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 16:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment I've proded it. Adambro 16:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment Since Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) removed prod on all three of these tram articles [1] [2] [3] I'd suggest you go straight to AfD Adam. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 21:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Comment - Yes, that's probably the better idea. I've changed it from a prod and added it to this AfD on the basis that similar prods have been contested recently and that the article is of a similar nature to those already part of the AfD so the considerations are the same. Adambro 22:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. There are several good reasons for keeping stations in their own articles. First of all, individual stations are independent geographic and historical concepts. They may have substantially different history from each other, or different architecture, and may develop separately in the future. To take Pittsburgh's light rail network, you can have stations which are a newly-built part of the "T" and stations which exist from the old Castle Shannon railroad days. Lumping them into one list seems counter-productive (for one thing, you'll have a hell of a long list). Splitting stations into separate articles also allows one to create a sense of geographic expression, through the use of succession boxes (from this station to that station). Speaking from experience, it is tricky to properly express the idea of a junction in the kind of list being proposed. Stations may also belong to one or more lines, which might not even be operated by the same transit company. In that case, we either duplicate the information on multiple lists (yay, forking!), or we place it all in one station article. Furthermore, any station that still exists is an obvious candidate for the creation of free images. Finally, once we start splitting out some stations, it makes sense to split them all out for consistency. Furthermore, notability is not and never has been criteria for deletion. When you all call for delete, you're really calling for a merge. Mackensen (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
comment Sheffield's trams stops are not stations, they have more similarity to bus stops. There is nothing to merge from these four articles as all the information that they contain is already in the main supertram article. —Jeremy (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
In that case I withdraw my objection. Mackensen (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment With all the work put on the Sheffield Supertram and the spot on point by JeremyA, you may consider not merging since Sheffield Supertram#Tramstops treats adequately the subject. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 07:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Reasons are the same as all others who have suggested delete.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep are per Midland Metro debate. Andy Mabbett 09:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into a new Tramstops of the Sheffield Supertram article, to cover standard features, and any specific items for particular locations - there are over 40 stops, and individual articles for each would be an unnecessary overhead. Either the main page, or this proposed merged page could perhaps also use Wikipedia:Railway line template to good effect. Regards, Lynbarn 10:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that the template could be used to good effect, but I still don't see why a new article would be desirable at this stage, when there is so little of interest to say about the individual stops, and what can be said could easily be placed in the main Sheffield Supertram article. Warofdreams talk 00:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • In fact, I've now made a stab at drawing it up: Template:Sheffield Supertram. Warofdreams talk 00:58, 13 April 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.