Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Bispham tram stop (Blackpool)

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 merge to List of Blackpool tramway tram stops. I am taking it on trust that Thryduulf is going to create this page in mainspace in due course. SpinningSpark 22:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Little Bispham tram stop (Blackpool)

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

Wikipedia is not a directory of tram stops. This fails WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 08:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because which are part of the same tram network and fail notability criteria:

Tchaliburton (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete individually they lack notability, collectively they add nothing to Blackpool tramway (CSD A10) Bazj (talk) 09:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No denying it Blackpool is a popular area for tourists & whatnot but at the end of the day we're not a directory of bus/tram stops, My best suggestion would be to add them perhaps on Wikivoyage ..... –Davey2010 • (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect all to a List of Blackpool tramway tram stops (or similar title) which can contain the location, routes, area and notable places each stop serves (if any) - all of which is perfectly compatible with Wikipedia's gazetteer function. Any individual stop can be spun out to a separate article if there are sufficient sources to write an encyclopaedic article about them or that can be included in article about the area served (compare e.g. Station Street tram stop and Old Market Square tram stop in Nottingham). Thryduulf (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've left messages advertising this discussion at Talk:Blackpool tramway and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Trams. Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete, Blackpool Tramway is amazing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.223.44.119 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 12 December 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Blackpool tramway unless sources can be found which show how an individual stop is in some way different from the others along the route. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For those of you suggesting we merge it into Blackpool tramway, what content are you proposing we merge? Blackpool tramway already has a map listing the stops, I don't know what else would be of value. Tchaliburton (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Keep~~ Changed to Neutral without prejudice for recreation properly per response below.- These are in fact light rail stations along a major and historic light rail system, just in the same way Oldham King Street Metrolink station is a light rail/tram station on the Manchester Metrolink or Judah and 19th Avenue is a station on the N Judah line of the San Francisco Muni Metro. The community wisely decided years ago that all train stations are notable. This relieves editors of the burden of fleshing out the detailed notability of the tens of thousands of rail stations throughout the world when time and resources should be better spent creating new articles of notable topics and improving existing ones. I think if these newly created articles were as detailed and formatted as the existing article examples mentioned here, they would not have been nominated for AfD. It's simply an example of the enthusiasm of a new editor wanting to create multiple articles of notable topics without understanding the psyche of new article patrollers. --Oakshade (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tram stop, not a train station. There no inherent notability for tram stops and it does not meet WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The affectation of the local word "tram" for light rail is just that, an affectation. The same exact type of light-rail systems are used all over the world and are properly called "rail." Examples are the identical systems of Seattle's Link Light Rail Tacoma Link or Salt Lake City's TRAX (light rail). As a matter of fact, a more pointent example is the Gold Coast Light Rail which uses the Flexity 2, the exact same light-rail rolling stock that the Blackpool "tramway" uses. Calling it "tram" as opposed to it's common "rail" is simply a local semantic.--Oakshade (talk) 01:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you can call it a palace if you want, it's still not notable. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never called "it" a "palace", just that they are rail stations. What I will say is this; The articles were clearly just created by a newbie without regard to Wikiformatting and rail station conventions .(I've somewhat Wikified a couple of them.) Due to their bad shape, I wouldn't be opposed to them being deleted without prejudice to re-create to more standard rail station articles. --Oakshade (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if this comes across arsey but ... WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - Just because other tram/train stations exist doesn't mean these should too.... Also I've seen it more than once where someone's created an article and 10mins later it's ended up at AFD so again not really a reason to delete IMHO. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That OTHERSTUFFEXISTS essay doesn't trump long-standing WP:CONSENSUS, not to mention WP:COMMONSENSE in which the community consensus has long abided by when it comes to rail stations. There are always exceptions to guidelines when common sense is needed and this is one of them.--Oakshade (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't shown any evidence of a previous consensus on tram stops. Also, WP:Consensus Can Change. I'm not sure how you think WP:COMMONSENSE applies, but to me common sense says we shouldn't have articles on non-notable subjects. Tchaliburton (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible to prove a negative as consensus has always kept proper light rail/tram articles. There is no "evidence" consensus has changed - A limited number of editors in one AfD of badly made articles is not consensus.--Oakshade (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. These are equivalent to bus stops rather than rail stations.Charles (talk) 10:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that they are equivalent to either - they generally fall between the two. The long-term nature of tram stops and the necessary infrastructure mean that they are always going to be useful search terms so we shouldn't be leaving redlinks, hence my recommending merging and redirecting to a list. Thryduulf (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - These are some of the most pointless articles I have ever seen. They will always be stubs and probably outdated. This is light rail not "proper railway" stations.Charles (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not arguing for keeping them as articles. I'm arguing for redirecting them to a list. Thryduulf (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a list already, with a map, at Blackpool tramway. Tchaliburton (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but read my !vote above where I explain what a full list of stops can and should have. Thryduulf (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see what you're saying. I could see it potentially being a part of the main article. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would rather overwhelm the main article, given there are 36 stations on the current route and more to come if the proposals are built. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tchaliburton, Oakshade, and Lamberhurst: I've started a list that these could be merged to at Draft:List of Blackpool tramway tram stops. I've only had time to do the first three stations so far, but I intend to continue working on it (and anyone else is welcome to contribute too of course!). Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that this is notable on its own. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 00:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The system itself is undoubtedly notable, and so a list of stations/stops on the system needs only to be verifiable to be included as it's part of Wikipedia's gazetteer function. There would be no question of this were it a section of the main article, and the only reason it isn't is for reasons of space. Thryduulf (talk) 08:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine it will be large enough to qualify for spinning off based on WP:SIZERULE. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 09:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why you would think that. The article is already pretty long and there are ~36 current stops, plus those on disused and future routes. Thryduulf (talk) 09:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I expect the list will be deleted as non-notable in due course just as lists of bus routes generally are.Charles (talk) 09:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of bus routes get deleted because bus routes are inherently transient and they can and do change at the drop of a hat. Tram stops are not at all transient because trams run on fixed routes and serve stops that typically have some associated infrastructure that means they can't be changed at the drop of a hat - some of the stops in this list are over 100 years old. The two are not the same. Thryduulf (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I think that? Look at WP:SIZERULE.T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 17:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that too. The article is currently in the "may need to be divided" range and after the addition of the tram stops list would be firmly in the "probably should be divided" category. It is also common practice to spin out long lists from prose articles. Thryduulf (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable per nom. Could also be worth looking at other similar tram stop articles such as those recently created for the Nottingham Express Transit to see if a similar approach can be taken. Lamberhurst (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The NET articles are a complete mix of stubs about small tram stops, articles about the stop and what it serves, redirects to articles about what the stop serves where the stop is mentioned, and in the case of at least Station Street tram stop a non-stub article about the stop (which in that case is equivalent to a railway station in terms of infrastructure). A batch nomination for all those stops would therefore be inappropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Infrastructure is not a relevant condition when assessing notability. What is required per WP:NRV is "verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources". That is not the case with the majority (if not all) of these articles, including Station Street. Serious thought needs to be given whether articles such as, for example, Sandilands tram stop are really notable, given that Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Lamberhurst (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge by line 'These are reasonably permanent, though normally without the structure of train stations, but unless more can be said there is no need of individual articles. DGG ( talk ) 19:44, 20 December 2014 (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.