Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back of the Hill 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back of the Hill station[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The remaining street-running stops of the E Branch (with the exception of Heath Street) are nothing more than just bus stops. Considering the local precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bynner Street station and the more regionally distant but related precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchester Avenue station, this article, as well as Fenwood Road station, Mission Park station, and Riverway station should either be deleted or merged with the primary E Branch article. Heath Street should be salvaged, however. Nick Boppel (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As the sources in the article indicate, the subject meets the GNG. (In the AfDs cited above, the station stops lacked citations.) Done deal. Aside from that I have a hard time figuring out how one categorizes a subway station as a "bus stop," that's a subjective value judgment that has nothing to do with any notability criteria on Wikipedia. Ravenswing 17:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a wholly different situation than the Bynner Street AfD - I nominated those stops because there was no reliable information available, not even what intersections the stops were actually at. These are well-documented stops with historical information that can be added (Riverway in particular was a major junction); lack of stop infrastructure is not a guarantee of lack of notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't a policy-backed rationale, but it makes a poor reading experience to delete a few stations in the middle of the line. It messes with navigation, making a gap when navigating through the stations via the adjacent station templates. If more than a few of a line's non-major or transfer stations has an article it's better to have articles for all of them. However an alternative to keep the continuity would be convert these articles into a list (ex. something similar to List of state routes in Nevada shorter than one mile). Jumpytoo Talk 21:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can see the rationale for keeping the article for consistency reasons, but I do agree with the nominator that it's essentially just a bus stop, as can be seen here. It's not a subway station. It's no more notable than thousands of very similar tram stops in European cities that we would never have articles on in a million years. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator Comment My issue here is the apparent double standards for these types of articles. We can't have different policies surrounding these situations for different geographic locations or different transportation agencies. The question is "Are streetcar stations that are nothing more than an ordinary bus stop notable simply because they serve streetcars and not just buses? Yes or No." If the answer is "Yes", the articles on SEPTA Routes 101/102 should be restored (this would apply as well if the argument for keeping is consistency). If the answer is "No", these E Branch stations that are nothing more than just bus stops should be deleted, but Heath Street should be kept because it has actual infrastructure (the loop and the operator's building). A general principle needs to be applied here - we can't say that these minimal streetcar "stations" are notable for the MBTA but not notable for SEPTA, or anything of the sort. Nick Boppel (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the article should probably be called Back of the Hill stop, since — as the nom. noted – it is hardly a full-fledged station. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There was a 2017 RfC about whether to use "station" or "stop" for articles like this. It's definitely an issue where any discussion should take place at the project level, rather than about individual articles. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, adequately sourced, and sounds like there may be platforms added in the future. NemesisAT (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2021 (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.