Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Affluence 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 keep. No consensus to delete. To keep or merge is out of afd scope. (Non-admin closure)Antigng (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Affluence Stop[edit]

(View log · Stats)

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

Batch nomination of the above 70 stub articles (all the light rail stops of the MTR Light Rail, and the two existing articles on its routes). The station articles were almost all entirely created in January 2009 by User:Ricky@36. A very similar set of articles was proposed for deletion in January 2007; the debate was closed as no consensus (tending towards delete) but a week after they were all redirected anyway.

The nominator of the stop articles in 2007 noted that the articles were quite formulaic: each consists of a short description about how the stop is a light rail stop located "on the ground" in zone x with two platforms; it is on road y near that road's junction with road z; it serves residential developments a and b; and is on lines p and q. For pretty much all of these articles, not much has changed since 2007, except they now have a few more templates and Chinese translations (but still, mostly, no references or just a link to the MTR's website). Most, if not all, of the stops are not particularly individually notable in their own right, five-sixths of them being of almost identical structure; they are quite similar to bus stops (in, for instance, mostly not being named after place names but residential estates and other establishments or roads, and having small catchment areas). Most of them are unlikely ever to be expanded beyond stub articles.

These articles could be summarized in the main Light Rail (Hong Kong) article; be merged into a few articles similar to the Lists of Pokémon; or simply redirected (which I would prefer). For the few articles that contain more than three short paragraphs, an infobox, navboxes and S-line templates (Sam Shing, Tuen Mun Ferry Pier) which don't have a rapid transit/metro station right next to them (Tuen Mun; Siu Hong; Tin Shui Wai; and Yuen Long, which should be merged into Tuen Mun Station; Siu Hong Station; Tin Shui Wai Station; and Yuen Long Station respectively) they could be kept. [EDIT: Tuen Mun Ferry Pier Stop could be merged into a section in Tuen Mun Ferry Pier. I'm not sure what parent article Sam Shing Stop could be merged with because there are no articles for Hanford Gardens, Sam Shing Estate or Sam Shing Hui. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

The articles on the routes lack references and have not been expanded since their creation six years ago by User:KX675 (created 505) and User:Montemonte (created 705/706; apparently blocked for sockpuppetry). They should probably be redirected to and given short descriptions in Light Rail (Hong Kong)#Stops and routes. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge:

Article	Into
MTR Light Rail Route 505	Light Rail (Hong Kong)#Stops and routes
MTR Light Rail Route 705/706	Light Rail (Hong Kong)#Stops and routes
Sam Shing Stop	?
Siu Hong Stop	Siu Hong Station
Tin Shui Wai Stop	Tin Shui Wai Station
Tuen Mun Stop	Tuen Mun Station
Tuen Mun Ferry Pier Stop	?
Yuen Long Stop	Yuen Long Station

The rest can probably be ~~deep-sixed~~ merged into an omnibus List of MTR tram stops^{Useddenim (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)}. Useddenim (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am extremely unfamiliar with the Light Rail system, despite being a frequent MTR user. I will, though, note that in most MTR route maps (say in-train displays), most of these stops are not named individually, but only as brief route lines around the West Rail Line. For reference, a majority of the stops' articles in zhwp has a lot more text worked in for their History sections, but sourcing would definitely require improvement. Tentatively I see spinning out Light Rail (Hong Kong)#Stops and routes and giving each stop a small section a possible solution, and merge Yuen Long/Tin Sui Wai/Tuen Mun/Siu Hong into their MTR station articles, per Useddenim. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 10:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know that I'd liken them to bus stops. Looking at the photographs these are stations with side platforms, physical structures, and overpasses. This appears to be a true light rail system and not a tram system, and generally light rail stations are kept. Mackensen (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are more than simple tram stops, which just have a sign by the road like a bus stop. They are more akin to genuine stations, and we traditionally keep all those. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination openly declares that "These articles could be summarized... be merged ... or simply redirected". Such actions are all performed by ordinary editing, not deletion, per WP:ATD. Therefore, per WP:SK, this discussion should be terminated forthwith. Andrew D. (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep per others. I think there is decent potential to expand the articles based on Chinese Wikipedia, where the analogous LRT stop articles are not huge but would altogether be too much to compile into a single overview page. I feel more ambivalent about the route pages though. Citobun (talk) 06:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Citobun: I wouldn't put all of them into just one overview page, but rather have five or six based on the fare zones to make the article size more manageable. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles can be expanded based on Chinese articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Good afternoon (talk • contribs) 14:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Good afternoon: The problem with that is, other than a few stations which have had accidents or other incidents occur close to or at them (Hang Mei Tsuen, zh), there's not much to translate other than station layout tables and bus route information (and for a few, track diagrams). Some, however, do have rush hour information (Leung King, zh) or route service history (Yau Oi, zh). Some of them definitely could be expanded, but information (e.g. line history) would end up being repeated in several articles (e.g. in 2003 route 720 services were replaced with route 751 services) (if the articles aren't consolidated, anyway) and there will probably be issues with finding sources other than fansites and blogs (most of the zhwiki articles have or should have {{Unreferenced}} or {{Refimprove}}). Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Since this nomination concerns multiple articles, and there is no clear consensus so far, let us discuss one more week.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These stops are notable in their own right, just like any stops on other networks around the globe. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:11, 22 March 2015 (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.