Talk:Metro Walk

Merge to Richmond Station
After seven days, the discussion (which I might add did not have to be done) resulted in two people saying the article was not notable apart from other articles against only one saying it was. Merged  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  19:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Apparently not merged, Lucifer wants to ignore consensus  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  05:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is unsourced. Though probably notable, its notability is intrinsically linked to that of Richmond Station (California), as it is a transit-oriented development built because of that station. I also find it unlikely that much more significant content could be added. There, setting the notability issue aside, I move that this be merged with Richmond Station  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  14:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not unsourced just poorly sources. Sources are hidden in the external links, and also available here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, some cover it in depth, others provide references simply for the cost of the homes or show that it has been cited as an example worth touring. I would ask that the merger be postponed for a cleanup of the article. And also PBP in the future, since I know you have concerns of over/poor coverage of Richmond related articles, since I am more than willing to improve them, don't you just bring it up to me and we can work on improving them together? I can research and add content, you can copyedit and criticize, how bout it dude?LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also if it were to be merged the article for the neighborhood of Richmond might be a more appropriate location with a simple mention of it in the station's article. As the village is in Downtown, but it is not "in" the station.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To be clear, notability is not the issue here (I conceded notability above and happily concede it again); the question is whether it should stand alone or be merged to another article. And there's no sunset on merges, so you have the time you need  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  22:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If something is notable then it should have its own article. Especially with the amount of coverage this place has. It does not belong at the station article as it is not part of the station. The San Francisco Shopping Center and Richmond Greenway are along BART lines or connected/adjacent to them but that doesn't mean if one of them was short it should be merged.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Having the article pop up in a Google Search a bunch of times does not amount to "a lot" of coverage (WP:SOURCESEARCH). I have never said this wasn't notable, just that its notability wasn't independent enough of other existing articles, the station being one of them  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  14:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Stop skirting around the facts, these are sources in major newspapers and other media. Those are the sources I am talking about. It meets GNG by far. The sources are only about Metro Walk. This village is not the train station. It is not owned by BART. So it shouldn't be merged with the station.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * First off, not "by far". Second, bare notability does not mean "automatic keep in an article all to itself".  Notability isn't always relevant in a merge discussion; a topic can be notable and still be merged  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  02:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing sourced in the article to indicate if it is notable and why. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's notable due to non trivial coverage in multiple sources per GNG. This thread is about whether to merge it with an article about a subway station not on its notability.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If notability stems from the subway station then it is not really notable; it just has due weight with regards to the subway station article. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This thread is again about whether or not to merge. Secondly it's not, it's notable on its own. It simply is located next to a station, like millions of other buildings and structures are located next to stations.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Why was my archive removed? Seven days and three editors is certainly long enough for a merge consensus, especially since merges can be done BOLDly  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  05:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm unaware of any archive or its removal. As this merge proposal has received a request for comment (RFC), the typical time allowed for editors to respond is thirty days, per Wikipedia:Requests for comment – Ending RfCs. Please be patient and allow time for other editors to respond to the RFC. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, Lucifer claims that Richmond Station is the wrong place. Funny, it seems quite logical to merge a transit-oriented development built because of its proximity to a mass transit station, and I might add constructed in the parking lot of said station, to the article on that station.  Particularly when the article he mentions at it being merged to, Downtown Richmond, Richmond, California, is frankly a candidate for deletion/merger itself (one paragraph, no sources) and merging MetroWalk there would give it undue weight in the Downtown Richmond article (to say nothing of the fact that there is no source that attests that the station actually is in Downtown Richmond!), whereas it would not have undue weight in the BART station article  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  05:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

RFC
Merged Should this be merged to Richmond Station (California)? One editor proposed a merge (then carried it out, but was reverted), noting this article might be notable, but not independently notable enough of the BART station it was built in the parking lot of. A second editor claimed the article is notable and should not be merged. A third editor has commented that the article is not independent enough of the station, but not particularly committal on the merge (though a lack of notability would suggest a mergist or deletionist position)  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  05:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to Downtown Richmond: to Richmond Station (California) per my above comments  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  05:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)  On futher consideration, Downtown Richmond seems to be the place to go if Downtown's boundaries can be verifiably defined and undue weight concerns can be addressed  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  17:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose merging – It appears that the Metro Walk Transit Village is a planned community that is markedly separate from the Richmond Bart station, and will include retail stores and housing. When people populate those homes, they won't be saying they live at the Richmond Station BART station. They'll refer to the location next to the station, likely as "Metro Walk"; therefore, this article should be separate from the train station article. The train station is also being rebuilt, but the station and urban area will be separate areas. A different subject: this is an interesting urban housing idea in and of itself. It would be convenient to live right next to a train station; easy commuter access. A creative way to use a vacant lot space and part of a parking lot to create a unique, planned community. Maybe I'll move there someday. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * First off, there appear to be a few anachronisms in what you've said...but that's really more to this being out-of-date/relying on out-of-date references more than anything. You portray the development as novel; having done some study of T.O.D., I must point out that it's not...almost every mass transit project nowadays has some sort of mixed-used T.O.D....and in most cases those projects don't (and shouldn't) have their own articles; instead they are mentioned in the articles on the respective lines or stations they are associated with (also, "planned community" is stretching it...at 16 acres, the project is dwarfed by even a medium-sized shopping mall).  I also contest you divorcing the project from the station...it was built in the station's parking lot and because the station was there.  And "I'd like to live there" isn't a particularly good reason...I too would like to live in a T.O.D., but that doesn't make this or any other of the hundreds of developments of a few hundred units erected every year notable  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  16:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, out of date information also known as history is paramount. I.e. elections results from 1988, the minimum wage in 1970, the cost of the first Model T car. So the pricing shows that this is not a trailer park nor are these mansions, it gives the reader an idea of the socio economic factors at play here as reported by the press. This particular development is novel. It is the first one in the Bay Area and it is the only one that I know of that comes with the concept of built in business space on the ground floor of the house. It's part of the actual house not a separate unit of commercial space on the ground floor mind you. The houses come with a free business license included to spur economic development. That fits the definition of novel very well. This project although touted as the Richmond Transit Village is its own creation. It was only partially built on a former BART parking lot, most of it was built on former open space. It was also built because the sewer lines and street was there, but that does not mean we should merge with East Bay Municipal Utility District or Macdonald Avenue. It is absolutely a planned community of very high density. The latter reasons were opinion and not part of his actual argument, he was using it to help explain the mindset of why such a thing would be important to a reader.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * See below thing about trying to lecture me on history, and please read WP:NOT. And the only one you know of?  C'mon, I can probably name several in Los Angeles and a couple in Portland.  To say nothing of the fact that the concept of T.O.D. is a century old; the first T.O.D.s were streetcar suburbs, which existed in almost every metro area, including the Bay Area.  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  22:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge, but not to the Richmond Station; it would be better merged to Downtown Richmond, Richmond, California, the actual neighborhood that this development is a part of. That article needs to be expanded and IMO the information about a housing development would fit better there than it would in an article about the station. With a merge, most of the content currently in the "Metro Walk" article can be put into the merged article, and a redirect will be left, so there is really no difference in terms of the availability of information. But this small housing development simply does not have enough independent reliable sourcing to be a stand-alone article. (And yes, I did do a Google News search.) I am personally a big believer in Transit Oriented Development and in articles about neighborhoods, but that doesn't mean that every 132-home development deserves an article. A merge is a good way to avoid deleting the information; it's a compromise if you will. Something we all need to learn to do gracefully. --MelanieN (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is independent of the neighborhood however and it would easily survive AfD which makes me think that merge is simply the wrong call.LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge, agreed with MelanieN above —lensovet–talk – 01:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge, what Melanie said. Nobody Ent 04:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 *  Important Note  - I've corrected the RFC listing to prevent this RFC from being continuously listed in the unsorted RFC's. Tag has been updated to be specific to Geography and Architecture categories in RFC. Therefore, I request that this discussion be extended from this point onward, to allow time for editors to respond. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge as per MelanieN. Not being familiar with the area I have no understanding of its geography beyond what's in the articles, but I don't understand why an article about a station and transport infrastructure should have lots of information about a housing project (allowing for the fact its a TOD). Merging the information from the article into one about Downtown seems to make sense to me. In addition, the Downtown Richmond, Richmond, California article refers to the housing project and then directs to the Richmond Station (California) article which has no logic to it. Even if the merge as proposed above by Purplepack89 takes place there is nothing wrong with repeating the information in the Downtown article. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge in summary form to "Downtown Richmond, Richmond, California" as part of that area. Metro Walk does not seem to have individual notability, long-term, because it is just an 8-acre (3.2 ha) housing development. Even though Google Search listed 518 webpage titles, most of those hits seemed to be commercial real-estate ads, not WP:RS sources about the subdivision as a notable topic, just what happens when dozens of websites list houses for sale in Google. Too bad WP had one of the few coherent entries about "Metro Walk" but perhaps Google would rank a "wiki-realtor" or "wiki-homes" website to describe subdivisions of housing in large towns, which is not the role of Wikipedia. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge, while it may be notable on its own, there simply isn't enough content in either article, and they're directly related. Would be better merged. Pvvni (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed advertisement paragraph
Hey, I have removed the following paragraph:


 * The floorplans of these cluster homes are from 1,395 to 1,615 square feet (130-150 m²). When sales began the homes sold from the $300,000 range and up. There are three models: bungalows, villas, and career homes. The later come with a ground floor space that can easily be used as a business or live/work space. The monthly community fee is $200.

Why, you ask? Well, WP:NOT, of course...the paragraph reads like an advertisement (WP:NOTADVERT), much of the content is unencyclopedic, and furthermore, the housing price data is certain to have fluctuated since the 2004 publication, and will continue to fluctuate even if we get the number it currently is now. We generally don't include fluid lists like that (Same with the community fee).  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈ 


 * This information is of interest to demonstrate the size and scope of the development and what socioecomonic status it has. It was reported in a major newspaper and is not an advertisement. Real estate sections of newspapers are not ads. They are reviews and offer negative and positive attributes of such developments in addition to op/ed. Ads on the contrary only mention the positive and attempt to sell an item. For the history, it is important to note what it cost. If you looked up the model T article it would state the very out of date price at the time it was first sold, not the current cost of an F-150, make sense?LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No...it's not like that...because a Model T and an F-150 aren't the same thing...and house prices are completely different than car prices, namely that there isn't a consensus to put housing prices in articles, because the same house lasts a lot longer than a car. What a house cost in 2012 is barely relevant, what a house cost in 2004 is completely irrelevant.  Please familiarize yourself with relevant policy before continuing to add bad content  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  22:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You are missing the point, the original price is relevant to the reader. In the future when prices will inevitably rise, people will be able to see what it cost originally. Many articles deal with price. The prices are well sourced and independently so. What policy would that be? I think you are just trying to remove the content so that a reliable source on the subject from a major news outlet that covers the subject in detail can be removed and therefore obscure the notability of the article by removing a good reference.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I'm removing bad information that pretty clearly violates WP:NOT. The paragraph is written like an advertisement, and your new, "fixed" version does nothing to resolve that.  I've seen articles been nominated for deletion because they had numbers that fluctuate much less than housing prices.  And saying "other articles have prices" is comparing apples and pianos...articles with prices are usually about something other than houses (something with more stable pricing), and just because they have it doesn't mean it's inline with policy...it could be they just haven't been cleaned up properly  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  22:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

RE
Readdtion of a paragraph that violates WP:NOT

Here, you re-added a paragraph. The paragraph you re-added violates several aspects of WP:NOT. Regardless of whether or not it was intentional, the paragraph reads like an advertisement, most likely because it is sourced from the real estate section of an article, which is essentially an advertisement posing as an article. The housing prices and community fee data is eight years old; we generally don't include data like that because it is too prone to frequent fluctuation to be accurate. As for the square footage data, I can't really find either a great many articles that include that data, or a policy that supports the inclusion of it, leading me to believe it doesn't really belong. Please address these concerns on the talk page before adding the paragraph back  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  21:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "You can't just basically say i don't like that sources or anything it says when it covers the topic in depth"...um, you can if it violates WP:NOT or other Wikipedia content policies  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  23:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I would really appreciate it if you stopped fragmenting debates onto a million talk pages and kept relevant discussion here it really helps everyone with the continuity of the discussion. You really do need to specify what part of NOT you are attempting to invoke here. The content is notable and provides more substance for the article and it is not an add. I have addressed your concerns about the time and place of the cost there. See the problem is I can't exactly say "working class neighborhood" because that it OR nor can I say "cheap" or "expensive" housing as that is subjective. However stating the actual cost is very objective and neutral and what wikipedia is all about.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, I said NOTADVERT in the very first edit in this thread...though it couldn't hurt if you familiarized yourself with all aspects of WP:NOT. "Notability" is not the right word for the content.  Whether or not it was intentional, the thing reads like an advert.  And "it cost X dollars eight years ago" isn't helping, because people want to know "what does it cost NOW?", and since now is constantly changing, the result is a bucket of syrup that means it's just better to leave the data out altogether  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  00:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well you fail to explain how it violates NOTADVERT. Based on my understanding it does not. Now based on rereading it is does not. Would you care to elaborate, are are you going to keep insisting it does violate based on actual IDONTLIKEIT instead? The size of a project, the cost of a project, the cost of the homes is relevant and should stay. I have explained why. To be objective we can't describe it as classy or ghetto, just the simple cost at the time. People may want to know all sorts of things but our job is only to report what we can prove with verifiable reliable sources. Aslo we have a responsibility to report the history.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Update
From NorthAmerica and other's comments, and the fact that the references used are several years old, I think an update tag is appropriate. For example, the article uses sources that are several years old to say it is still under construction...is it finished?  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  16:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No it is not finished and this is an encyclopedia, old references are good references for history's sake.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "Old references are good references for history's sake". Not if they're inaccurate or superseded by new information, they're not.  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  19:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * They are accurate and new information should be added in chronological order but wikipedia does not just maintain current information, it's main purpose is older and ancient information. That is a fundamental principle here that I am shocked you wouldn't understand, but I think you are just trying to cause trouble and interfere with any and all improvement because of a personal vendetta against me and anything related to Richmond. Either you hate the town or hate me and know I like the town.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * DO NOT LECTURE ME ON HISTORY. I AM A ******* HISTORY MAJOR.  There's a difference between historically significant information and just plain inaccurate and out-of-date information.  And you apparently can't tell the difference  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  22:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No one here is any more special than anyone else. The information in this article is historically relevant to this topic and should stay as wikipedia's job is to keep track of history as it is an encyclopedia.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If no one here is more special, how come I don't go nuts when other people change or remove my content and you do?  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  23:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your claims that your a "A ******* HISTORY MAJOR" give you no more weight as an editor than anyone else. Let's keep the discussion on the content shall we?LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're the one who's taking pot shots at me, claiming I don't understand policy. But you need to learn that your edits, or edits you like, aren't sacrosanct.   Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  00:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The statements you have made conflict with policy and your claims at being a history major do not offer any credibility for the rules of this domain.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing as my statements are based in policy, I very much doubt that. I could point out that saying I know nothing about history, as you did above, is a personal attack...  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  00:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would you make that up? That is not what I said. You should clean your glasses.LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Report from City of Richmond official website
"Status: Phase I is complete with 132 housing units, a plaza immediately west of the BART station, approximately 16,750 square feet of retail space and a 2,800 square foot inter-modal transit building that includes a ticketing agent/station vendor space and the multi-agency police facility (“patrol stop”) primarily serving BART police officers."
 * Removed update tag from the article: Per the City of Richmond website, CED Monthly Reports - September 2011 (Report here)—

"Phase II is approved to consist of 99 housing units, approximately 10,750 square feet of retail space, and will elevate the Nevin Avenue walkway to provide enhanced transit access to the station from the east.  All Phase II improvements will be constructed on the east side of the existing BART station after the completion of the parking garage." (Et al.) — Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)