Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dixon Park & Ride

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to Dixon, California#Transportation. Unscintillating made the strongest argument for this, and none of the other "delete" voters objected to a redirect, which implies consensus for it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dixon Park & Ride[edit]

Dixon Park & Ride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable bus station. reddogsix (talk) 03:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Literally a parking lot with a bus shelter. There's nothing further we can expand this with. Nate • (chatter) 04:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Theres articles for every bus stop on the L taravel line and all it is a painted yellow marker, this is an important part of the infrastructure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Busguy9 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Then I question their inclusion here. Looking at the station, it's a shelter surrounded by parking spots; that's as non-notable as you can get outside of an average street corner with a bus stop sign. There's no other stops in Dixon. It's literally a small part of the route. Nate • (chatter) 05:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no. 8 of WP:DEL-REASON, does not meet WP:GNG. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but WP:DEL8 does not exist independently of WP:ATD, which is just as much a part of WP:Deletion policy as is WP:DEL8.  WP:PRESERVE is also a policy.  WP:REDIRECT is just as much a guideline as is WP:N.  WP:INSIGNIFICANCE collects these points as quotes, including relevant quotes from WP:N.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, what? i don't understand the above. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No?  Ok, here is the entire text from WP:IGNORINGATD, which redirects to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just not notable (I've never heard of merger or redirection), and the oldid here is oldid=794585120:
Just not notable (I've never heard of merger or redirection)
Shortcut

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

  • Delete Non-notable – I don't like redirects, 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails N and all relevant SNG – Who cares about ATD?, 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

The fact that a topic is not notable is not, in and of itself, valid grounds for deleting a page, its content, or its history. If merger and/or redirection is feasible in a given case, either is preferable to deletion. To validly argue for deletion, editors need to additionally advance separate arguments against both merger and redirection, on relevant grounds. (Since "merger" includes a history merge without redirection, an argument against redirection is not an argument against merger). Since any verifiable topic/content can in principle be redirected/merged to an article on a broader topic, this should be exceptionally difficult. Valid arguments against merger might be based on WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT or WP:BLP, in particular. (In some cases it might be a prerequisite requirement to transwiki the page first). Valid arguments against redirection must be based on the criteria specified in WP:R (that the proposed redirect is clearly positively harmful). The only valid argument for "delete and redirect" is that every revision in the page history of the page otherwise eligible for redirection in question meets the criteria for revision deletion (WP:REVDEL). See further WP:ATD.

Posted by Unscintillating (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is in no way, shape or form a case of WP:SKCRIT #1. Though briefly, the nominator makes a nomination statement that's policy-based. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"No way, shape, or form" is not a technical statement.  And no, the nominator has not attempted to turn the notability issue into an argument for deletion.  See WP:IGNORINGATD.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dixon_Park_%26_Ride&oldid=1137791784"