Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bramalea (Züm Queen)

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. While there's some consensus, these need to be relisted individually. I'm treating each remaining article as a keep - feel free to relist them at your leisure. m.o.p 19:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bramalea (Züm Queen)[edit]

(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, and they shouldn't have their own articles. Slon02 (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related bus articles for deletion for the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as a failure of WP:GNG as well as the argument advanced by the nominator. Imzadi 1979 → 02:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you want to delete this, then you must also delete all articles about subway stations in all cities that have them such as New York City, London Underground, and the TTC because each station in those systems is not notable and they are rapid transit stations, right? But if you don't agree with that, then keep all of them. (Singh001175 (talk) 05:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- While this argument is appreciated, please remember that this rationale is not applicable to anything on Wikipedia. No two things will ever be the same, regardless of categorization - judge them based on their individual failings or achievements, not on the fact that there are a bunch of other similar things that are still around. m.o.p 19:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about NYC, London, or any other place else besides the above stations. WP:ALLORNOTHING is generally not a valid argument in AfD. Also, Whether articles already exist in Wikipedia has no bearing on this set of articles. --I Jethrobot (talk) 07:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is a significant difference between subways and other forms of rapid transit. -- Zanimum (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally... but this is an exceptional case because the definition of a BRT is really vague. BRT stations could range from a normal bus stop to a subway-station like design. If these are to be deleted, then it is valid to say that all articles pertaining to rapid transit stations all around the world have to be deleted. (Singh001175 (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

While this argument is appreciated, please remember that this rationale is not applicable to anything on Wikipedia. No two things will ever be the same, regardless of categorization - judge them based on their individual failings or achievements, not on the fact that there are a bunch of other similar things that are still around. m.o.p 19:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, with regards to the VIVA stations, they've survived as articles since 2005. They've been highly visible all that time, no one was hiding them, but no one took offence to their existence after 2006 at the latest. Why can't they at least have immunity from this AfD? -- Zanimum (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No article has immunity from AFD - you could start an AfD for Jimbo Wales if you wanted to. Article age is never a factor.

Comments

(1) My creation of Züm station stop articles, that started this witch hunt, have been deleted. There really was not enough individual information that could not be included in the main Züm Queen article.

(2) Please be comprehensive and nominate all of the Viva stations here. There is not much point in randomly selecting a few for deletion and leaving a disjointed series of articles behind. If you are serious about this you must go all the way. I think that "all or nothing" is a valid argument in this case, because the reasons to delete or retain these few will apply to most of the others in the Viva system. Exceptions can be dealt with individually.

(3) Bus Terminals should not be incuded as they are not curbside bus stops, but are substantial off-street facilities with numerous platforms and other amenities such as information booths, ticket offices, waiting rooms and toilets. You know what a bus station looks like. Their inclusion here only confuses matters and might delay a quick conclusion. I request that you remove Shoppers World Terminal, Downtown Brampton Terminal and Bramalea Terminal from this nomination.

It should be noted that I have contributed to many Viva station articles in the past, frankly because they were rather weak, but they are really only fancy bus stops. These are not comparable in any way to the structure of a bus, railway, metro or subway station or real BRT stations along a dedicated roadway. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These aren't just bus stops but rapid transit way stations on dedicated right-of-ways like Boston's Silver Line, very much in the same sense as rail stations. This batch nomination is way too big for for an AfD with an unmanageable amount of possible opinion combinations. WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply as the topic of transitway stations are very discriminate and not a "Plot-only description of fictional works," a "lyrics database" or an "excessive listing of statistics" which are what WP:INDISCRIMINATE forbids and there is nothing about WP:NOTGUIDE which applies to transitway stations. And some of these, like Downtown Brampton Terminal are in fact not only transitway stations, but transportation hubs serving an entire region. --Oakshade (talk) 07:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep, but the rest, no. This is because bus terminals connect (or are planned to connect) to rail transit (LRT, commuter rail, etc.). Downtown Brampton Terminal itself connects to a commuter rail line and is a regional hub, which can stay, while Bramalea Terminal is the busiest terminal in Brampton, which can merge with Bramalea City Centre. Shoppers World Terminal can also merge with Shoppers World Brampton. York University must stay as well as it is a regional bus terminal. This will also connect to a subway line extension which is under construction. The rest can go. (Singh001175 (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Comment, I've just significantly expanded the Shoppers World Terminal and Bramalea Terminal articles, to the point where Bramalea's especially would be nearing impractical to merge with the mall's article. The Downtown terminal can be similarly expanded, once the AfD is over. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge I would suggest:
- keep each transit terminal, as all serve 2 or more transit systems,
- Vaughan Corporate Ctr. (VIVA) be kept, because of its relevance to Vaughan Corporate Centre (TTC), under which it would be the final stop of the subway expansion,
- the VIVA stops be kept, or at least merged into Viva Orange. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Shoppers World Terminal, Downtown Brampton Terminal, Bramalea Terminal and York University (YRT) as they are all terminals or significant transfer points (multiple platforms). Delete Kipling (VIVA), Islington (VIVA), Martin Grove (VIVA), Pine Valley (VIVA), Ansley Grove (VIVA), Weston (VIVA), Vaughan Corporate Ctr. (VIVA), and Interchange Way (VIVA) as they are all single curbside bus stops. PK T(alk) 23:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - many are notable; others may not be. It is not possible to have a coherent discussion on such a mass nomination. No prejudice to individual relisting if wanted. TerriersFan (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The good ones are referenced and verifiable, and with some work the others should be as well. - SimonP (talk) 16:52, 5 July 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.