Talk:200th Street (IRT Third Avenue Line station)

Encyclopedic?
Although I have not proposed this article for deletion, I am not convinced that it could ever be developed into a robust article. In general, I think that defunct train lines should be covered once, in an article about the entire line, rather than creating separate articles for each station, which invariably won't have much to say&mdash;as this article amply demonstrates.

Note that someone has also created a page for 204th Street on the same line, but none of the 3rd Avenue El's numerous other stations have articles at present, nor are they likely to. Marc Shepherd 14:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, encyclopedic
What is the rush to exclude? There used to be a line (the Webster Avenue line) that served tens of thousands of Bronx residents. The area is just as dense as it had been. It is a noteworthy topic to include not just the line but also the stations. What is the point of a line if there are no stations? This editor votes not to delete the article. Dogru144 16:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * At the moment, there is no rush, and there is no vote. I did raise a concern, which you haven't addressed. There is an article for the IRT Third Avenue Line, which lists all of the 54 stations on that line. Nearly all of those stations do not have separate articles, and it's easy to see why — it's pretty hard to write separate encyclopedia articles about 54 no-longer-existent stations. These are, of course, only the tip of the iceberg, as New York had many other elevated lines that were demolished long ago.


 * The present article, as it now stands, is four sentences. Unless someone can reasonably foresee a meaty article about this station alone, a more sensible strategy would be to expand the existing IRT Third Avenue Line article. A reader wanting to know about that line would find it far more useful to have the information in one place, than to click on 54 four-sentence articles. Marc Shepherd 17:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)