Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigourney Street (CDOT 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigourney Street (CDOT station)[edit]

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

This is a proposed bus stop that does not exist yet. Even if it did exist, bus stops aren't inherently notable and this one fails WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for non-existent bus stops on this line:

Tchaliburton (talk) 08:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the nomination is demonstrably incorrect on one point, and arguably wrong on two others. First, while the articles have not been updated in a while, a quick search reveals that these are not "proposed" stations. Construction has been under way for several years, and the busway (which is nearly complete) is scheduled to open on March 28, 2015. I don't think this amount of finished concrete is just "proposed". New Britain and Newington are additionally proposed to be rail stations under two separate commuter rail plans; however, that does not impact what has already been constructed.

Second, these are not conventional bus stops; they are vastly overbuilt bus rapid transit stops more akin to light rail or even commuter rail stations than to sign-and-a-plexiglass-box bus stops. Take a look at current aerial images.

Third, notability is not difficult to establish. Most of these stops were previously local stations on the New York and New England Railroad: Park Street (as Parkville), Flatbush Avenue (as Charter Oak, plus Oakwood on the Hartford and New Haven Railroad), Elmwood, Newington Junction (both railroads), Cedar Street (as Claytons), East Street (as Pratts), and New Britain (both railroads). Tyler City Station] has detailed history (with meticulously listed reliable sources) and often public domain images on every of those. Several - particularly New Britain and Newington Junction with its restored depot - have other easily findable sources available; I'm currently sitting in front of two different books with useful information on both. Seven of these ten articles thus easily meet the notability guideline. Even the three stations without independent railroad history have site plans, construction updates, and other documents available. While all of these articles need improvement and updating, deletion is a poor choice for any. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 10:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the project is under construction, notability still needs to be established per WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 10:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a bus station not a bus stop. User Pi seems to have access to good sources and per WP:AGF we should allow him to get on with this without disruption. There are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger with Hartford,_Connecticut#Buses and we should prefer these to deletion per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 12:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the lot - Had these been created even 5 months I'd say Keep... but they were created in 2008 so why the long delay in building/opening these? ... Nonetheless it's obvious no one knows when (or even If) they'll be built/opened, So until something concrete pops up I'll have to say Delete. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true at all. Multiple recent sources including the official web site list March 28, 2015. And concrete has already popped up (literally and figuratively) - check out the links to pictures above. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -It exists and has been built but do we honestly need different articles on each bus station? ... IMHO Merging would be a much better solution but anyway I personally disagree with this entirely but there you go .... Shit happens life moves on. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As noted above, these are not bus stops but are comparable with LRT, subway or commuter rail stations. The busway will carry similar volumes of traffic - but in buses rather than trains. They have a physical station structure and are under construction. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not valid criteria for inclusion. WP:GNG needs to be met. Tchaliburton (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are not "bus stops" which is the criterion that you gave for deletion. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the criterion I gave for deletion is that they do not meet WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're blindly groping at GNG without actually reading it. It requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I provided a link to a site in which histories of seven of these stations have been compiled using several to dozens of newspaper articles, internal railroad documents, and other sources, all of which are viable and reliable sources that can be accessed and cited here. Do you dispute that these satisfy the GNG; if so, how?

It appears you did not follow sections of WP:BEFORE, notably searching for sources (a Google search would have invalidated several of your claims) and engaging in other avenues such as article talk pages and relevant Wikiprojects. Can you please explain why you think deletion now is appropriate when you did not perform such basic actions first? To me, this came across as heavy-handed and a very odd way about things. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find credible, third-party sources denoting notability for each bus stop. What link are you talking about? Tchaliburton (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I perhaps was not clear; let me elucidate. Seven of the eleven BRT stations on the line (all except Sigourney, Kane, and East Main, plus Hartford Union Station which is under no doubt) are located at the sites of former train stations - five local stops plus the important junction stations at Newington and New Britain. Mainline passenger rail stations in the United States are essentially guaranteed notability, as their effects on local geography and history tend to result in numerous sources available. In Conecticut, the Tyler City Station project (run by several notable transit historians) has gathered detailed histories of every single station in the station, with meticulous listing of the sources they used to compile the histories. In most cases, these are documents such as old newspapers and public valuation books that qualify as reliable, independent sources.

My contention is that the busway station articles should be merged with the (as yet unwritten) information on the old stations. Integrating histories across modes in this manner is accepted practice on Wikipedia; there are numerous light rail and rapid transit station articles that include histories of mainline rail stations they replaced. This presents an organized flow of both historical and current information, and leaves those articles as more than one-sentence stubs. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Any station that has been a railway station of any significance should be included. But the article needs to be written with an integrated history, as you suggest. So the article should be about the station in general, not just about the bus station. Per WP:BALASPS the article needs to be balanced "with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." In this case that would mean the articles should primarily be about the historic stations. Tchaliburton (talk) 06:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is apparent that the stations are notable, as they are not on a minor bus line. Newington is also planned to be a train station, so that one should not have even been considered for deletion. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These aren't "bus stops" but in fact transitway stations, much the same way Queensway Station (OC Transpo) is a transitway station.--Oakshade (talk) 04:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Number one, as other users have pointed out, these aren't bus stops, they're transit stations that utilize buses, much in the same way a metro system has stations. Number two, the line that these stations run on, CTfastrak, is going to be opened on March 28th, 2015. I've mentioned a few times on some talk pages that I'm going to be working on the articles for CTfastrak as well as its stations. As of now, the only thing I can write about is the history of how they were developed since the stations aren't officially open yet, even though they're getting preliminary use from public officials as if they have been finished. And as I've said before, if anyone wants to help me with that, please write me on my Talk page. TwilightKing81 03:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwilightKing81 (talk • contribs)
Keep, per Pi, SecondaryWaltz, Oakshade, and others. As Kevin Rutherford also noted, stations like Newington are also proposed New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Commuter Rail Line stations. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:49, 19 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.