Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High School tram stop

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 of the debate was uhhhhhh... no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 06:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

14 keep, 11 delete, 8 merge. (Votes such as 'keep or merge' and 'merge or delete' are counted as just 'merge') - Mailer Diablo 06:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] High School tram stop

NN, D. ComCat 00:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Firstly what does "NN" mean? Secondly, as I only created this article a few days ago, it hasn't really been given chance to be expanded beyond a stub etc. Our Phellap 00:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It means its non-notable, delete it. ComCat 00:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It is one of a series of articles, so why delete this one in particular? Similar articles exist for railway stations, tube stations and tram stops on Midland Metro and Sheffield Supertram. I fail to see the logic for this nomination. Our Phellap 00:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't mean anything. There is nothing about notability in deletion policy. Deletion policy does not allow for as much deletion as ComCat's appetite requires, so he is making up new reasons to delete things. Trollderella 16:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Or, it could be a good-faith nomination based on an understood but controversial and uncodified notion of encylcopedic notability. I'm not happy with these terse nominations or the apparent mass nomination, but I don't see any reason to be assuming bad faith when it can be explained as a good-faith misunderstanding or disagreement of what is appropriate for deletion. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 16:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why he did it MiB, but mass nomination of seemingly random articles, with no explanation, except a coded reference to something that he must know is not in policy, and is best controversial, is bound to raise a certain amount of irritation. If he wanted to irritate less, he would explain his nominations, or nominate more carefully chosen articles. Trollderella 16:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as much as I resent the hypocrisy of those who seem fascinated by boxes on wheels and other traincruft.--Nicodemus75 01:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. We have other similar articles. Carioca 01:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, with the exact same sentiments as Nicodemus75. StarryEyes 01:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as part of the abovementioned series. A tram station at a high school? AfD will collapse in upon itself! — mendel ☎ 02:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • A tram stop, not a station? Well, then, delete. Too high precision for an encyclopedia. — mendel ☎ 20:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - note to people deciding on relevant result in these vote/discussions: ComCat seems to have picked a bunch of fairly random stubby articles today and "NN, D."'d them all (16 of the first 20 nominations on today's page, in fact). Going by the mix of articles, I'm not convinced that they wereall judged on any specific merit - several of them are speedy keeps (although it must be said that two or three of them are deletable). Grutness...wha? 02:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep or wikipedia:Tram stations/Arguments#Keep as appropriate. Kappa 04:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. Kappa 16:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but... Keep this only if the article is expanded otherwise, DELETE.---Newyorktimescrossword 05:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's verifiable and part of a series. Alphax ^τεχ 06:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep please we have many articles like this it is part of a series ersaing this makes no sense Yuckfoo 06:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the transit system. Tram stops do move around a bit more than subway stations, Oslo lost one of its tram stops a few months ago, although they are naturally more less mobile than a bus stop. This article is however a very short stub, and unless expanded all the stops can be merged into a list of stops with short descriptions, which is far more reader friendly than separate articles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect them all into the main article per Sjakkalle. Having them in one article is indeed more friendly. An article on a tram stop is impossible to expand with meaningful encyclopedic information to a state for which a seperate article is warranted. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Do something that isn't keep to this. Merge it, redirect it, delete it, hell, BJOADN it, but I can't imagine an an article on a tram station ever being anything but an unexpandable stub. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 14:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh God. You're serious, aren't you? What about Ramle Tram Station, Beckenham Junction station, Birkbeck station etc? Trollderella 16:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, not serious about BJAODNing it. This is obviously an unexpandable stub, but I leave it to the wisdom of those who actually want to write about tram stations to arrange it or dispose of it. As for the others, I feel similarly, but lack the energy and desire to seek them out and deal with them. I have a list of cruft to deal with in my own overspecific interests. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 16:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge Trollderella 15:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge. Having checked it up, this is not a tram station (which might be notable, they tend to be large and locally prominent) but a tram stop, which is equivalent to a bus shelter. See this link, which has a picture of this allegedly notable structure. So this is a footnote to Nottingham Express Transit but on its own the structure is patently non-notable. Or should I create a Wikipedia article for the bus shelter at the end of my road? - Just zis Guy, you know? 18:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

You could, if you wanted to, create that article, and we could deal with it on it's merits. As you know, non-notable is irrelevant to deletion. Trollderella 19:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm... could you be a little more condescending? "As you know" not being notable means not being encyclopedic. And what are the phantom "merits" of this article that warrant its inclusion? -R. fiend 19:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

So where, Trollderella, do you place the cutoff point for notability? I'd say a bus shelter for tram passengers is not notable. You are free to disagree, but that is my settled view. - Just zis Guy, you know? 20:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, where do you place the cut off point for how yellow the object is? I don't place a cut-off point for notability, because notability has nothing to do with deletion criteria. It may be your settled view, but it's not deletion policy. Trollderella 22:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per new info brought to light by Just zis Guy, you know?. The title isn't even right, as it is not a station. This ios basically the same as a bus stop. Mention it in the high school article, maybe, if it can be done so without looking ridiculously stupid and amateur, which it probably can't. -R. fiend 18:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - this is a tram stop, not a tram station. There is nothing useful that could be written in an article about a tram stop. - ulayiti (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, the BBC disagrees with you. Trollderella 22:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, well, the BBC are not an encyclopaedia. What in particular are you referring to? (Sounds interesting.) - ulayiti (talk) 10:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. --Carnildo 23:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable. That's a pretty cool 360°, but there's barely anything more than a trashcan and a sign. My little New England city has bigger bus stops than this. Since the article does not seem to give any special significance to this stop, I have to say delete. - orioneight (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Nominator made no effort whatsoever to support this nomination. Bryan 00:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • And that is a reason to keep this article? Denni☯ 01:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • It's a reason to reject this nomination. I've reviewed the article further, and there's a whole category for these things: Category:Nottingham Express Transit stations. Rather than deleting them, there's plenty of material here for a larger and more comprehensive article about all of these. Why not merge it all into one big article, if the stubbiness of the existing ones is a problem? What's the reason for deleting this particular station's article? Bryan 05:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If you like to see it merged, then why not vote to merge? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete If we wish to drown in a sea of inconsequential trivia, let us welcome articles on bus stops. (Oops - forgot to add my name - Denni☯ 21:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC))

'Drown' is an interesting way to put it, I'm not sure how you'd ever even notice. Trollderella 02:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep train, trolley stations. They don't have to be notable or expandable. Fg2 03:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Please read the above. It is not a station. -R. fiend 03:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. We're really reaching the bottom of the barrel here, aren't we? - brenneman^(t)(c) 08:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep someone is working on it, its part of a series so deletion would be stupid, and it may later help to give structure to the city articles (in the same say as the tube station ones do with London; Nottingham only has trams not a subway). Justinc 09:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • There's a lot of things that can be told about London Underground stations as the The Tube is world-famous and the stations are actually more than a shelter and a sign. We could merge all of it in an article about the tram line, but can you think of any information that can be included in an article on the bus stop. (It's not a station). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep' notable. chowells 21:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Nice link to panoramic photo. Honbicot 22:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep trolley stations. Klonimus 05:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, have you all lost your minds? Gazpacho 06:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing resembling notable. It is about a tram station at a high school no one cares about (figuratively speaking). It is ridiculous to say anything but delete. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 01:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete tram stops. And bus stops. And especially those with a generic name such as this one. Radiant_>|< 17:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I have updated the page with more information on its location and service frequency. I have also added some more links. Our Phellap 17:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Station on a notable system for which useful information can be given. David Arthur 18:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or delete. The stop hasn't got any sort of substantial infrastructure, and there's nothing else remarkable about it. --A bit iffy 13:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge; the information about frequency isn't really necessary here as it will become outdated due to redunancy. --SPUI (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete just nn --JAranda | watz sup 00:36, 1 November 2005 (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.