Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Paul's 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 was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St Paul's tram stop

Tram stops are, well, tram stops. Except when they happen to be a station they are generally indistinguishable from bus stops. Unless there is something notable about a particular tram stop I don't see the point or need for an article especially since all the information is already in the main article Midland Metro. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. This is a multinomination for deletion of all tram stop articles in Category:Midland Metro stops excepting, of course, the stations (Snow Hill, Jewellery Quarter and Hawthornes). Delete all. BlueValour 04:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or else we may soon see 7th avenue Bus Stop ReverendG 05:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Why do people do this? Delete ~ trialsanderrors 05:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as this is a one-liner article with no content which is not already clear from the article on the tram line. However, I don't think tram stops are generally not-notable par se. They are more permanent fixtures than bus stops are, and I feel they lie between bus stops (usually deleted) and subway stations (almost always kept) in terms of notability and I feel that stations on light rail systems with separate tracks away from the streets have more in common with with subway stations than bus stops. My delete is without prejudice an article with some more description. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Actually it appears that the Midland Metro acts more like a light rail system, which normally has fixed stops, than a traditional tram. Most of the tram articles seem to have been created in October/November 2005, and have not been updated significantly since. I hope the articles can be expanded in some way, but after this time I'm not sure someone will step up to do it. That said, I'm neutral on this matter. Tinlinkin 07:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • After reading the arguments below, I will give in to the benefit of the doubt and say keep. I wish that those who say these articles can be expanded will do so, and soon (after 10 months of inactivity). Tinlinkin 01:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I created these with intention of expanding them into decent sized articles. I understand that the size and layout at the moment appear to make the article look non-notable however I must stress that these are just the beginning of the articles and more information with reliable sources will be added. - Erebus555 12:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment:Could you at least add a secondary reference to the article, to show that it is externally verifiable without referring to a timetable? If it can be confirmed without reference to a timetable then it should be able to stay.Garrie 23:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 12:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As the Midland Metro was once the former Great Western Railway Birmingham-Wolverhampton railway line, I would imagine that several of the stops (being built on former railway station sites) will have some history, which could be incorporated into the articles. Our Phellap 13:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Mostly these are not on the site of former stations they are just stops. No history or notability have been added since last October/November but if any is found it can be added to the main article Midland Metro. BlueValour 14:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I have to say I agree with the above comments (by Tinlinkin and Sjakkalle) that the Midland Metro stops are notable. They have more in common with the Docklands Light Railway stations than they do bus stops, and all the DLR stations have articles. It might also get confusing if too much information is incorporated into the main Midland Metro. I would suggest a sensible course of action would to be to wait. If Erebus555 is indeed wanting to expand the articles, perhaps they should be given the chance to do so. Our Phellap 17:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I spotted these some time ago and we have been waiting for 10 months. If the creator was going to do something substantail he would have done it by now. There seems no danger of too much information; there is virually nothing. If something notable of such length appears that it would overbalance the main article then a separate article could be recreated. The one stop on the site of a former station is Wednesbury Great Western Street tram stop and there could be an argument for keeping that one. However, the question is why keep them? WP:NOT is quite clear - just because they exist is not enough to jusfy an article. This is /policy/ and says Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. What is needed is a good reason for separate articles; remembering all the encyclopaedic info is already in the main article. BlueValour 17:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - You say you saw these 10 months ago yet I only discovered them yesterday and I see that the articles I created yesterday have seemed to have sparked this. I have come across sources which I will use to expand these articles. I have not had the 10 months you mention to expand these. - Erebus555 17:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all proposed. Not per se notable, not specifically notable, and WP is not a travel guide. Gazpacho 19:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This Afd is part of a general anti-piblic transportation slant on Wikipedia. The article is not hurting anyone, and non-notability seems a bit harsh. This appears to be a type of LRT where the stations are "real stations" as opposed to "stops". Just because this happens to be a stub now does not mean that it is not of value to people. I think a lot of people just wish to delete for the sake of deleting. I will point out Wikipedia is not paper. As such there is limitless space for articles. If articles are not used that much, they will not slow down servers. This article appears to meet the LRT guideline, as a "real station" so why not keep it? What are you saving by not including it, except preventing greater access to information about public transportation? Nlsanand 19:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment "except preventing greater access to information about public transportation" is simply untrue. No information is being deleted that is not in the main article. I am arguing that there is no need for 21 articles where 1 would do a better job. It is easier for the reader to find information in 1 place than clicking on 21 articles. /If/ so much encyclopaedic information is gathered on these stops that the main article becomes unbalanced then it can be broken out - initially into a Midland Metro: Tram stops article - that is normal editing practice. "What are you saving by not including it" - you are saving people's time in providing the information they seek in a more accessible form. BlueValour 02:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - that is (in my opinion) doing it the wrong way round. Create the combined article first, then delete all the individual elements, if that becomes the consensus. -- Tivedshambo (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep all - light rail stations like on the DLR are notable; this is one of them; not a street tram (whose stations would not be notable). This article has a template which is connected in with the British Rail system anyway; to get rid of it leaves platforms on interchange stations which are unexplained by a neighbouring stations box. It makes sense to keep this article. Leave them alone. (JROBBO 06:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC))

• Comment - not at all; you simply link the tram stop name to Midland Metro. BlueValour 20:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. There appears to be nothing that distinguishes this tram stop from any other tram stop (it's not even a full-blown train station). Wikipedia is not WikiTravel. If someone demonstrates just how this stop is more important than the normal everyday bus or tram stop, I'll change my mind. Also, accusing delete voters of being part of a conspiracy to delete all of a certain category of articles, without giving any other reason to keep the article, is a WP:POINT violation. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete every single one per nomination. This is not encyclopaedic. I would draw the line at Birmingham Corporation Tramways. A tram stops??? Where will it end? God forbid, someone will start creating articles for post-boxes and telephone booths next. ;-) Ohconfucius 07:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Get a life - it's a light rail stop, which are notable everywhere else. Why can't this one be notable? (JROBBO 04:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC))
• Delete Non notable and trivial. Or should I create an entry for the stop sign at the intersection near where I live? Edison 20:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - these are stations in their own right, often more substantial than some conventional stations, even though just served by trams. Virtually all British stations have their own article. -- Tivedshambo (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I intend to produce a diagramatic map of the Birmingham Metro in due course, which will show all these stations. See User:Tivedshambo/Research -- Tivedshambo (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep and expand - these require considerable expansion, but they are as equally notable as railway stations. They are substantial purpose-built structures used by millions of people each year, not just temporary bus shelters. DWaterson 21:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and Expand per DWaterson. Light rail railway station. Whats else is next to be up? List of London Underground stations? . --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 03:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as notable as railway stations, lets hope for expansion. bbx 08:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Having read, and re-read the following arguments I also say give it the benefit of the doubt and say keep. Or at least keep those with a bit of history; i.e. those that occupy (or are very close to) the site of a former GWR station. --7severn7 14:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Not that they aren't notable, but there's almost nothing encyclopedic that can be said about any of them, and until there is, it can all be covered in the main article. --Dtcdthingy 02:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep please these stations are notable it makes sense to expand not erase Yuckfoo 07:20, 7 September 2006 (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.