Talk:Route 128 (MBTA station)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Trains Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
Low This article has been rated as low-importance within the Trains WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Stations.


Contents

[edit] Moved here from VFD

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Route 128 (MBTA station)

This article was recently undeleted on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. Undeletion policy requires that undeleted articles be re-listed on VfD. The previous vote can be seen at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Route 128 Station. The previous reason for the deletion nomination was: This page is an advertisement for a train station. I don't see any evidence of its notability in the article. Acegikmo1 22:22, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC). Please review the article and process, and vote again. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 03:54, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. There's precedent for such articles existing. In cases where an article fits into a greater framework the threshold for notability should be lower. Mackensen (talk) 03:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Stations. --SPUI 04:01, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a very large station. iMeowbot~Mw 04:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • No, it isn't. At least, it's not one of the great monumental temples of railroad station architecture. It's not even a picturesque historic depot. It's just a bland functional box. A better claim to special treatment would be that it is one of the three stations that is a stop for virtually all (all?) Amtrak trains in and out of Boston, including the Acela. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:45, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Factual articles shouldn't be deleted. Grue 09:18, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Borderline Keep. (I voted the other way last time. So sue me). Language could use a bit of cleanup (removing peacock words). I think some different word needs to be used for "attractions;" this is not a tourist destination! Although it is the correct answer to the question "What Amtrak train station is nearest to Norwood Airport," the suggestion that it is convenient to Norwood Airport seems strained. I don't perceive it to be an ad, or at least I don't think that was the motivation in its insertion. I am influenced by SPUI saying it is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Stations, which I presume means there is a group of editors who will be paying attention to it. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:40, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep in current form. I don't think it's too notable, but it is factual and I've seen stations of similar notability make it to WP. --Deathphoenix 20:28, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Philip 22:06, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and send to cleanup. It being part of a project makes me confident it's going to get the attention it deserves (especially if listed on cleanup as well). Also, being part of a bigger set of stations makes a lower notability for its inclusion acceptable in my opinion. Mgm|(talk) 22:40, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --JuntungWu 11:53, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously. --Centauri 00:06, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. RustyCale 02:49, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep--Boothy443 10:15, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Chazzoz 00:59, Jan 21, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Geotag coordinates

The map coordinates (wikimapia, google map) are wrong - they point to an area of Kyrghistan (?), definetly not correct. I don't know how to fix this, maybe someone will ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.40.180 (talk)

Fixed; the geotag template had a positive longitude value, which means East of Greenwich, not West like anywhere in New England. Should be fixed now. —CComMack (t–c) 22:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Mbta-logo.svg

Image:Mbta-logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Mbta-logo.svg

Image:Mbta-logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)