Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henley Brook bus 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 no consensus. There was no consensus to Delete with a leaning to Keep (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Henley Brook bus 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)

Fails GNG. Sources consist of routine announcements in primary sources, a map, and bus route timetables. Wikipedia is not a repository for indiscriminate information, is not a platform for promotion, and is not a directory for local bus stations, local train stations, and local bus routes (see sources for this last one).

The Henley Brook bus station page was previously redirected per WP:ATD-R (see diff here). Redirect was reverted with a seemingly specious rationale (see diff). --- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same rationales noted above. These are similar pages using similar types of sources:

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree with Steve Quinn. Delete all. --Bduke (talk) 09:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Glendalough railway station shouldn't be included in this nomination, being a railway station with considerable physical infrastructure, and part of a railway network. It's dissimilar enough from the bus stations that it should be considered separately. Mackensen (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - proceed per nom and Bduke. But you have to concern Glendalough railway station as mentioned by Mackensen because railway stations normally pass GNG unlike the bus stations. Abishe (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about removing Glendalough railway station from this deletion discussion. --Bduke (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nom. I appreciate the feedback about Glendalough railway station. I am striking Glendale railway station from the discussion. I have to see how to remove the AfD tag on that page without screwing things up because it's all connected to this AfD. Thanks. --Steve Quinn (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have just removed it. I do not see any problems. --Bduke (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~or Merge to their local area articles or alternatively Transperth~~ as a viable alternative to deletion that is not being considered here - some of these articles do contain sources about the establishment of the infrastructure, which ~~while they may not be notable enough for their own page,~~ are appropriate for local or transport company articles. Deleting these pages is just a waste of the work done on them. Bookscale (talk) 09:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - and the comment about it not being a platform for promotion is just ridiculous. How does it violate that policy? Bookscale (talk) 09:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These bus stations are (or were) a significant part of the public transport system, and easily able to be fixed up and expanded with some work: for example, Karrinyup bus station is the public transport hub for that entire area of the city, with the sources that come with that - though I'm not surprised that someone who doesn't know that Glendalough is a train station and calls it "Glendale" might not be aware of that. Suggesting that articles on public transport infrastructure is "promotional" is comical. There is nowhere that these articles could be merged in a way that wouldn't lose their content - it would be a massive undue weight issue in Transperth, for example, which is the entire city transport network, and there is no harm in keeping them where they are. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the nom. I know very well Glendalough is a train station, and knew when I nominated it for deletion. Unfortunately, that article is very poorly sourced per multiple secondary, and independent sourcing, that is why I added it to this AfD. Regarding the other pages, notability has nothing to do with expanding or fixing up by adding some content. There are not multiple, independent sources that significantly cover theses topics as described in WP:GNG. Please provide the sources, if they exist. All sources appear to be quite related to the subject (lacking independent coverage). Therefore, part of the function of all these pages is promotion. By failing notability criteria, these pages publicize and benefit the bus stations and bus routes. I'm not saying this is intentional. I'm saying promotion is a result. And the main point is, Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Steve Quinn, with respect I think that argument is not correct at all. If you read WP:NOT, the part of the policy that refers to promotion doesn't refer to anything of the sort that you're discussing here. It talks about advocacy, propaganda or recruitment (which this is not), opinion pieces (which this is not), scandal mongering (which this is not), self-promotion (which this is not), and advertising, marketing or public relations (which this is not). Most of the articles have a couple of sources from the West Australian, or Government web sources that talk about the specific projects about building the relevant bus interchange. They are not unsourced articles. Bookscale (talk) 10:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This set of articles are a form of advertising and marketing - Wikipedia is giving free publicity to each of these stations. Which is unearned because they fail notability. Please produce secondary independent sources that have significant coverage that demonstrate this set of articles merit inclusion on Wikipedia per WP:N. Also, focusing on WP:Notadvertising is not going to win the day. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having articles on significant public transport infrastructure is not "free publicity" or "marketing". The lack of sound policy-based reasons to support deletion is leading some people into the logically absurd. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Drover's Wife - I take your point on Transperth. I'm open to these being kept, and have changed some of my !vote above. Bookscale (talk) 10:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those sources are mostly available from the government website, as there's of them are the historical infrastructure back to 1970s, which may not available from the web, where those may be crucial for those pages. Let see if I can find those information from the state library if those are available (needs reservation to get those resources) and if possible I would be add them onto there as well. Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 02:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - please note I find being drawn into chatting on afds a very mixed blessing, I would prefer not thanks. The big problem with setting up such a programme (sic) of deletions could in turn be applied to railway stations, and I do not support such action. Defaulting sourcing to any one method is fraught and short sighted, there are always ways of adequately finding material for WP:V if their is enough interest JarrahTree 09:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per comments by The Drover's Wife. Hughesdarren (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The Drover's Wife.4meter4 (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2019 (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.