Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/140th Street (MVTA station)

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 keep. Consensus is that the stations are not sufficiently similar to be properly discussed in a batch nomination. Mkativerata (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

140th Street (MVTA station)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These articles fail WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. There's nothing notable about any of these bus stations (fail WP:GNG), and they shouldn't have their own articles. Slon02 (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for deletion, for the same reasons:

Speedy Keep - Nonsensical batch nomination of topics about transit stations. Not only is it impossible to flesh out the notability of each individual station, but this list is all over the place; it's not only stations from different transit systems, but stations in different American states and even different countries. Those guidelines the nom throws up (WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:NOTEVERYTHING) don't apply at these are very discriminate topics and ironically, the nom choose to compile an indiscriminate list of unrelated topics for this AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're all simply bus stations, and each one of them is completely not notable. Wikipedia isn't a transit guide, it's an encyclopedia. Having an article on every single bus stop in the world would no doubt crash the Wikipedia servers- we might as well have articles on park benches and lemonade stands. I challenge you to find at least one article from that bundle that is notable enough to exist. --Slon02 (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm sure Wikipedia operators appreciate you concern for bandwidth, Wikipedia has in fact addressed this issue with the policy WP:NOTPAPER which states "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover, or the total amount of content" and the Wikimedia essay linked to it specifically address the bandwidth issue.--Oakshade (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right, Wikipedia is not paper. And that essay that you linked provides a very nice quote as well- "On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base of any and all information, full of railroad timetables and comprehensive lists." The main argument here is notability, and quite frankly, individual bus stations are able as notable as dumpsters or park benches. There's a reason for why these articles are poorly sourced stubs. --Slon02 (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subjects does appear to pass WP:GNG, as there are very few google hits, when a search as conducted, and of those that were found none were significant or in depth. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of these are bus rapid transit stations or major terminals, not simply bus stops as the nominator seems to be arguing. Bus rapid transit, unlike a conventional bus route, generally has dedicated lanes and stations which are more like light rail stations than bus stops. Besides, notable or not, these articles should not all have been nominated together. The batch of articles includes both operating and planned bus rapid transit stations from multiple systems, intercity bus terminals, smaller bus stations, and even one station which appears to have rail connections, which are not similar enough to be judged categorically. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Oakshade's argument is entirely persuasive. There's nothing wrong with batch nominations, as long as they're quite closely related. Subjects from different transit systems in different countries is not it.
That being said, it sure seems, looking over this day's AfDs, that the nominator has filed several on stations on bus rapid transit (BRT) lines. A glance at his contribution history, however, doesn't show that he's participated in any discussions as to the inherent notability of BRT stations. Why is that? I'm not normally a fan of WP:BEFORE - which is far more often used as a club by Keep proponents lacking any valid arguments than otherwise - but that would seem a prerequisite here. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 18:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As TheCatalyst brought up, these are not random bus stops, but major terminals. I am familiar with OC Transpo, and these are actual large stations; They aren't random sidewalk stops. "Pepper " 23:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This mass nomination is nothing more than a statement of deletion criteria devoid of supporting justification (WP:JNN). For example, how exactly does each article contravene WP:NOTEVERYTHING or WP:NOTGUIDE? And the only thing indiscriminate about all this is the random, diverse and extensive of mass nominations which cannot be properly assessed on individual merits. For the Ottawa/OC Transpo stations, note the keep on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tunney's Pasture Station (OC Transpo), for example. Dl2000 (talk) 03:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Transitway operated by OC Transpo in Ottawa is equivalent to the subway in other cities. The stations act as hubs for commuters and local bus services with bus rapid transit connecting on exclusive dedicated roadways from the suburbs into downtown and across the city. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.