Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eglinton LRT Carhouse

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. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eglinton LRT Carhouse[edit]

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

Not every building is notable, and this one isn't even built yet. It's just a yard for buses--that it's mentioned in a few newspaper articles doesn't make it notable. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD is one of three very similar ones. See the other two, out of:

--do ncr am 22:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a grain of truth in this nomination. Not every building is notable. One of the flaws in the nomination is the assertion that press coverage doesn't make a building notable. Of course press coverage, and other reliable, authoritative coverage, is precisely what makes topics notable. That is Notability 101.
The nomination incorrectly says it is a "yard for buses". It is a carhouse for light rail vehicles. While yards for buses do require special purpose adaptations, these adaptations are dwarfed by the special purpose adaptations required to maintain light rail vehicles.
Toronto has an extensive transit system. Every other maintenance facility in Toronto has a standalone article, and it makes sense for this facility to have its own article, as well. In 2012 I started the article on the Leslie Barns carhouse, which opened a few months ago. No one used its incomplete state to justify deleting it, and it is a lousy reason to suggest this article should be deleted, when there are already sufficient references to establish its notability. Geo Swan (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Geo Swan, show me some articles that prove notability. An article in the local paper that announces something is going to be built, that the land has been bought, etc., that does not make for notability. Significant coverage please. Oh, "Every other maintenance facility in Toronto has a standalone article"--OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is also AfD 101. It really means nothing, except that there's an editor or two who wrote up every building in the Toronto transit system. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - First, I am going to remind you that the assertion in your nomination, that the facility was "just a yard for buses", very strongly suggests you barely glanced at the article before you jumped to deletion. Can you really say you read the article, properly, before you jumped to deletion? Did you actually look at the existing references, at the time you made this nomination?
    Second, don't our policies and commonly agreed practices oblige you to do a web search, of your own, before you nominate an article for deletion? Isn't deletion supposed to be based on the notability of the topic, so contributors thinking of initiating an AFD, are supposed to stop, reverse themselves, and place tags, or voice their concerns on the article's talk page? So, why didn't you do so? Surely you can see that, if you had done so, you would have found there were additional references? I have added some of them to the article.
    You placed your prod on Roncesvalles Carhouse 12 minutes before you finished drafting this comment; you initiated an AFD on Russell Carhouse 14 minutes before you left this comment; and you initiated an AFD on Wilson Yard 26 minutes later. Didn't it occur to you that this could look like a lapse from WP:POINT and WP:BATTLEGROUND?
    Finally, have you considered how it appears that you started three new deletion procedures, on related articles, after I brought up the existence of related articles? You could, after all, waited to see how this AFD played out. Over on Talk:Roncesvalles Carhouse I asked you serious questions, and made what I think were meaningful, substantive, policy-based points, about the {{prod}} you placed on that article. Rather than give a meaningful, substantive reply, you wrote: "You found me out: I'm biased against infrastructure."
    Joking is not appropriate. Your joking strongly suggests you don't have reasoned arguments as to why you don't recognize expensive and important infrastructure as important enough to be notable. Breakdowns in essential infrastructure can be disastrous. We have special purpose notability guidelines, like WP:POLITICIAN. We need a similar guideline, named something like WP:INFRASTRUCTURE.
    Two of the areas I work on are maritime commerce and military vessels. When articles on maritime vessels are challenged they are always kept. IIRC, The Bushranger's rule of thumb was those vessels longer than 100 feet were very likely to be notable. My rule of thumb is different -- it's whether they have a full-time paid crew of professionals. There is a general recognition that million dollar vessels don't need to have a scandal, or loss of life, to be notable. IMO Ships, bridges, canals, freeways, aqueducts, pipelines, container ports, and yes, transit lines, and transit facilities, are among the kinds of things that old, traditional, paper encyclopedias covered, still cover. Do you really mean to argue that we should force our readers to go consult a paper encyclopedia, because you have an as to yet unexplained bias against covering this kind of topic?
    Now maybe if we had a widely attended debate, over the wording of WP:INFRASTRUCTURE, it would go the opposite way of the long-standing practice in maritime matters, and require deaths, or a financial scandal, or something other than that the project was a multi-million dollar project, that could cause chaos if it broke down at the wrong time. I don't think so. But, let me point out, that you haven't made any effort, whatsoever, to explain your position. It seems to me you are merely arguing that your position is "obvious". I wrote an essay, where I try to explain that nothing is obvious.
    Maybe you don't have the time or energy to explain yourself? Well, in that case, I am going to suggest you withdraw these nominations. Geo Swan (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep. A 23 hectare facility seems notable.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dont' see any connection between the size of a facility and its notability, which is determined by having "significant coverage in RS". K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please, let's not go off-topic. We are discussing the topic of an article on the Eglinton Carhouse. The maintenance and storage facilities for the Eglinton Crosstown line will use a campus that is not only quite large as urban developments go, and expensive, at half a billion dollars, most importantly, is covered in RS. If you haven't actually taken a look at the article's references, how valuable is your opinion as to whether or not they amount to "significant coverage"? If you haven't actually taken a good look at the references yourself, I suggest your opinion on them is, well, worthless. Closing administrators have the authority to discount opinions that are counter-policy, based on mistakes, or otherwise flawed.
If you have taken a meaningful look at the references, and, having done so still think they don't measure up, then I request you be specific as to what you would need references to say, before you would agree that they provide significant coverage. Geo Swan (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For heaven's sake it doesn't even exist. Proposed to perhaps exist maybe five years from now. Violates WP:CRYSTAL. Fails notability -- only passing mentions in local coverage, many of which are not even RS or are not even independent of the subject. Softlavender (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the subject is not notable, and it does not yet exist; it's in planning stages: "Eglinton LRT maintenance and storage facility will be required by the Toronto Transit Commission for its Eglinton Crosstown line currently under construction. The site will have storage for 162 Flexity Freedom LRT vehicles and have extensive maintenance facilities to keep them running smoothly." K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:CRYSTAL. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Geo Swan (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Geo Swan (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Puzzlingly, both @Softlavender: and @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: made explicit assertions that the article does not comply with WP:CRYSTAL. Softlavender and @K.e.coffman: both stated the the facility "doesn't even exist", that it is still in the planning stage, and imply that it may never be built.
I don't know how to respond to these comments without lecturing.

The Eglinton Crosstown route does exist, in that it is currently being built. Ground-breaking on the launch shaft for the tunnel boring machines was in early 2013. So, construction has been underway for almost three and half years. Billions of dollars have been spent.
It is not possible to run a rapid transit line without a nearby maintenance facility. Toronto's most recent streetcars were bought thirty years ago. A program of methodical preventative maintenance has allowed these vehicles to last thirty years. MetroLinx, the agency running the line, expects the new vehicles to last thirty years. It is absolutely essential that these vehicles have a maintenance facility. And, because they run on rails, that facility has to be nearby.
On April 9, 2013, I bought a day-pass and rode the buses that currently service riders where the LRT will run. I got off at every intersection where a station is being built, and took a couple of dozen before pictures. When the route is complete I will return to each station and take after pictures. There are no other good alternate locations for the maintenance facility.
The TTC had to choose between six alternate locations before they chose the site of the Leslie Barns, for its new streetcar fleet, because there weren't any really good sites. But, although I did a lot of research into this line, I haven't seen any other sites being considered. I am sure Mount Dennis was chosen as the western terminus because it was adjacent to a site suitable for the maintenance facility.

What the above means is that any assertions that the facility doesn't exist, and may never be built, simply aren't credible.

Is the facility "still in the planning stage". There are some references that say the plans for the site were completed in 2013. On the other hand, if you look at the revision history, you'll see I added coverage to the controversy over what kind of backup power the system will use. So, yes, the design is still in some flux. But the chance that the maintenance facility won't be built, or won't be built on this site, are zero.

I am going to quote the first sentence of point 1 of CRYSTAL. "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." I suggest that, since it is essentially certain this facility will be built, CRYSTAL just doesn't apply. Geo Swan (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are sources here. If sources deemed inadequate for some reason, then "Merge" is obviously the better alternative than "Delete". (Copying my vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilson Yard): It is legitimate material for larger article Toronto Transit Commission facilities, which has a short section about it. It's not too long that most of it could not be merged back to the larger article's section, leaving a redirect behind and hence leaving the page's edit history, which can be revived if more coverage turns up. However, it is also okay that it is split out to a separate article, so that extra detail does not clog up the main article. There is not much to be gained by this AFD.

Further, it is an editing decision at Toronto Transit Commission facilities about when its material can/should be split out, so if this is deleted then I think it can be recreated at any time by editors there. I think this should have been a discussion at Talk:Toronto Transit Commission facilities instead of at AFD. --do ncr am 22:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. At best, it can be merged with Toronto Transit Commission facilities. The Banner talk 22:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The Banner, contributors who add new material to the wikipedia put in time and effort. I think we are entitled to ask the quality control volunteers who weigh in at AFD to make a meaningful effort to understand what they are !voting on.
  You suggest this article be merged with Toronto Transit Commission facilities? Wouldn't that make sense if it were to be owned and operated by the TTC? The Eglinton Crosstown line, and Toronto's other new LRT lines, are NOT going to be owned by the City of Toronto. Rather they are going to be owned by MetroLinx, a provincial agency with overall responsibility for all public transit within the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). The GTA is three to four times the size of Toronto itself. MetroLinx will also own LRT lines in Hamilton, Mississauga, and Waterloo.
  Will the TTC actually operate the route? Most people assume it will, but MetroLinx has said it has considered other options, like hiring it own staff, and running their lines themselves, and hiring a private industry company to run their lines for them.
  With regard to your comment that this facility is not notable? Okay, what about the very similar facility, the recently completed Leslie Barns? They are about the same size; they were both budgeted at half a billion dollars; they service very similar vehicles.
  Not even our nominator is questioning whether the topic of the Leslie Barns is notable.
  So, please be serious. Take this topic seriously. Take your responsibility to weigh in here in a helpful way seriously. I think every reasonable person will acknowledge that, when the Eglinton Carhouse is ready to open, the Eglinton Carhouse article's notability will be backed up by a comparable number of references as the Leslie Barns article. So, if you are going to continue to hold your opinion that the Eglinton Carhouse facility is not notable, can you tell us when you think the Leslie Barns facility satisfied your stringent criteria for notability? Can you tell us what additional element you would require before you would agree that the Eglinton Carhouse was also measuring up to your stringent criteria?
  Please think about this. Are you really going to call for this article to be deleted, today, when it is sure to measure up to your criteria in the future? Think about this. Isn't this a grave disservice to the people who want to read what is know about it today? Think about this. Isn't your insistence on a deletion, today, a waste of the time of the people who have already done good, competent work on this current version?
  I have one more question of you. If you can't offer meaningful, substantive, policy-based explanations of your position, why shouldn't the closing administrator exercise his or her authority to ignore poorly informed and counter-policy opinions, and ignore your opinion? Geo Swan (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Funny story, as the article clearly states in its infobox: "Operated by Toronto Transit Commission". The Banner talk 18:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I requested you to take this seriously. Instead you joke.

The line may be operated by the TTC, on MetroLinx behalf. That would not make it a TTC facility. And, as I noted above, when the two agencies spar, MetroLinx hints that they will not delegate the line's operation to the TTC.

I raised several substantive issues in response to your opinion. You haven't addressed them. I'd urge to closing administrator to discount your opinion, since you haven't taken your responsibilities seriously. Geo Swan (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The Banner, without regard to whether the MetroLinx does or doesn't choose to have the TTC operate the Crosstown line, they already decided, in 2013, that they would contract with a third party to operate the maintenance facility. Geo Swan (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closing administrator, the seven day period is close to ending. It's my understanding that closing administrator's mandate is to not merely count noses, but to weigh arguments over their compliance with policy, and on whether they seem well informed, or based on misconceptions.
I'd like to point out that, The Banner voiced "delete" and merge to Toronto Transit Commission facilities, based on the misconception that the facility was owned or operated by the TTC. Clearly that merge is inappropriate when the facility is owned by MetroLinx and will be operated by a third party, under contract.
Softlavender, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, and K.e.coffman, all based their "delete" opinions on WP:CRYSTAL. They did so based on the misconception that this facility was still in the planning stage, and might never be built. The Eglinton Crosstown that will require this facility is over a third of a way towards completion, and billions of dollars have been spent. Planning, environmental assessment, and plan approval, was completed in 2013 -- over three years ago. CRYSTAL explicitly says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." I've explained why I think Crystal doesn't apply. I've asked these contributors to return here, and consider those points, or explain why they continue to favour deletion. I've also added over half a dozen new references, and other notability factors, since they weighed in. So, are their arguments ones you think should be discounted?
Finally, if we were to take the nominator at face value, when they wrote:"You found me out: I'm biased against infrastructure," then this nomination was not motivated by policy, but rather by an unexamined bias. Geo Swan (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Brilliant story, but only in your last edit on the article you retracted the claim that it will be operated by Toronto Transit Commission and replaced it by an unsourced claim. In the plain text you placed a similar unsourced claim. The sourced claim that MetroLinx will contract a "private company", does not exclude the Toronto Transport Commission straight away. The Banner talk 07:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Banner, you claim the assertion I added to the article that MetroLinx is going to contract the operation of the facility to a private company is unreferenced? The paragraph in the body of the article that makes this assertion IS referenced -- to an article that EXPLICITLY states: "The maintenance and storage site will be operated by a private company." That is a direct quote. No, it could not be referring to the TTC as a possible contractor. Why? The TTC is a city agency, not a "private company". Are you one of those AFD participants who reaches a conclusion by looking at the first screenful of an article, and never bothers to scroll down to the body of the article? Geo Swan (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - It was somebody called Geo Swan who stated in the article that it would be operated by TTC. Are you one of these editors who puts unsubstantiated info in articles and than attacks other who question that? In fact, it has a negative impact on the reliability of the article. The Banner talk 17:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - To whatever extent I initially implied this line was a TTC line that was what we call a "mistake". Scholars say "even Homer nods", meaning everyone is fallible. We don't delete articles on notable topics because they contain mistakes. We correct those mistakes. Only if acrimony and disputes prevent the article from being corrected would we normally even consider deletion. I suggest we particularly don't delete an article on a notable topic over a mistake that has been corrected. Geo Swan (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major transit infrastructure has always been considered notable here, tho we've so far covered almost exclusively the public-facing side of it; this sort of facility is the sort of topic we've been ignoring, and ought to work on. I'm glad someone has started.. I don't see this as CRYSTAL. The term is usually applied only to films, books, and the like, most of which may be planned, but never come into existence. Projects like this usually do get built, and if they don't , often because of citizen opposition or the like, they become even more newsworthy. DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very large and important facility. It will be built. Martin Morin (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As DGG says, we have consistently, and appropriately, treated major transportation infrastructure as notable. The article is properly sourced and the level of detail already present here militates against merging to a more general article, and the detail is likely to increase as the project proceeds. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My comment from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilson Yard largely applies here as well: Unremarkable, routine piece of transport infrastructure, there's thousands of those and this one has nothing interesting to say about it, especially as it's only being planned. Sources treat the topic superficially, are of a local nature or are not independent. Sandstein 22:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As I wrote: at the other AFD, I am mystified to see arguments that boil down to the most commonly used phrase the WP:Arguments to avoid essay warns us about -- "I don't like it" would advance a variation of that argument here.
- The assertion that the facility is "only being planned" is a serious misconception. Formal planning was basically completed over three years ago.
  There is a real danger of making a fool of one's self, when one weighs in on a topic one doesn't understand. Subway (Metro) routes, light rail routes, and streetcar (tram) routes absolutely must have a maintenance facility adjacent, or nearby. The maintenance facility is not optional. It is essential, as the route's success depends on a rigourous and methodical preventative maintenance schedule, so the vehicles last for decades.
  Since the route it will serve has been under construction for three and a half years, and billions of dollars has been spent, the facility will be completed, barring a disaster that destroys our civilization.
- It's routine for our articles to use a mixture of references only capable of backing up a single point, and references that go into detail. That is what this article does, and the assertion that all the references treat the topic superficially must have been made without the commentor making a meaningful attempt to actually check the references for themself. Geo Swan (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Black Creek Yard, as this is the name commonly used in the media. The name Eglinton is rarely applied to this facility. It will become notable after the Flexity Freedom vehicles arrive in the city. — EelamStyleZ (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ASPERSIONS _Muffled ^Pocketed 04:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a Keep vote. Renaming can be suggested at the Talk page later. It's not at all clear to me, as an uninvolved party, What are any negative "aspersions" implied by the suggestion, by the way. --do ncr am 18:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dane2007 (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- what about merging with/redirecting to Line 5 Eglinton which is currently under construction? The sources in the article are all local based, so I don't yet see individual notability. As a section, it may work in the target article. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very reasonable suggestion as a compromise option, but too late in this AFD process to really be considered as an outcome, I think. In this diff I just added mention of the Eglinton LRT Carhouse into a new subsection in that article, with a "main" link. The carhouse is at the end of the new line, and is part and parcel of it, so it certainly can naturally be covered as part of that article. The whole article is not too long to be included in its entirety as a section there. But based on how other AFDs have gone, though, IMHO it's way too late to get previous participants to consider this as an option and revisit their !votes. It is too late for a compromise. For example, those who settled on argument that the Eglinton LRT Carhouse article is well enough supported in reliable sources will not now change their minds. I personally think the AFD outcome should be explicitly "Keep" or "No consensus", either way keeping the separate article. Merging into the Line 5 Eglinton article can be suggested, afterwards, at the Talk page. This compromise could have come up and been agreed upon in a gentler discussion at the Talk page, which would have been better than opening this AFD, IMHO, but again it is too late for that. And it really doesn't matter. Editors at the Line 5 Edlinton article would have continued to have the option to split it out at any time, anyhow. Thanks for trying! Maybe participants could look at this as a reminder that more effort to consider Alternatives To Deletion would be worthwhile, before AFDing or during early stages of an AFD. :) --do ncr am 18:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- As a major transit infrastructure. I'm still not sure if this suitable for a stand-alone article at this time, but voting keep for now to keep the options open. There's also a reasonable expectation that substantial coverage will be available in the future as the construction moves forward. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Line 5 Eglinton There is enough material to keep, but within the Line 5 Eglinton article, rather than its own article. Alternatively, parts of it can be mentioned in the Kodak Heights article as well. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Call for closure. This discussion was relisted almost two weeks ago. I thought the opinions offered, then, constituted a call for keep -- particularly since the delete opinions seemed to be opinions that I thought merited being discounted, because they weren't based on GNG, or were based on misinformation about the topic, or about the article. I think the opinions offered, since then, call, more strongly, for keep.
Is there really any reason why this discussion should be relisted?
Is there any reason why this discussion shouldn't be closed, as keep? Geo Swan (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's close this AfD already :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When is merging is a disservice to readers?[edit]

Several respondents, above, have suggested this article should be merged. Note, however, they disagree on the merge target. Some respondents suggested merging to a more general article on TTC maintenance facilities; others suggested merging to Eglinton Crosstown, the $6 billion LRT routes whose vehicles it will service.

Either merge target erodes the freedom of some readers. Any reader who came to wikipedia with an interest in the TTC's maintenance facilities has their work impeded if we unnecessarily bury the material currently in this article into the article on the route. Similarly, any reader who is interested in the Crosstown line has their work impeded if we stuff the material into the article on maintenance facilities.

Doncram mentioned the technique of linking one article to another with a {{main}} template. Yes! Precisely! That is exactly what we should do! All the closely related articles should use a {{main}} template to link to this one.

Merge enthusiasts seem to overlook an important human factors issue. Traveling to information you think you might want to read, by clicking on a link, is much, much, more convenient, when one clicks on a link. When you click, and investigate what is at the other end of a link, it is trivial to return, by clicking the back button. However, when related articles are merged, this is no longer possible. One can scroll, and search by mark one eyeball, or one can use the browser's search function. And, once you got there, there is no good way to return. IMO, in most merge discussions, this is an overwhelmingly powerful argument not to merge.

THere are several other powerful reasons why merging properly referenced related articles, that each measure up to GNG, merely because they are related, is generally a really bad idea. Those other reasons not to merge apply to the idea of merging this particular properly referenced article, that measures up to GNG. Geo Swan (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2016 (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.