Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/22 pages dependent on page 'San Diego Trolley'


 * 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. Consensus seems to be that these articles are suitable for inclusion. That said, batch nominations are often detrimental, as it is impossible to fairly judge 20 articles in one fell swoop. Additionally, the articles were not individually tagged. Therefore, no prejudice towards speedy renominations of each individual article, but again, consensus here indiciates that they are notable. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

22 pages dependent on page San Diego Trolley
AfDs for this article: 
 * Request copied from my user talk page (Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)):

Hi, Anthony! How do you propose a whole group of pages for deletion? I have stumbled across a collection of pages that IMO can only be described as spamming. Could you take a look at this situation, and if you agree the individual subjects are not “notable” and not worthy of having a Wikipedia article apiece, could you maybe take the necessary steps to merge them and/or delete the minor ones? It seems to me they need to be looked at as a group, not as individual pages, but I don't know if there is any mechanism to do that.

Here's the problem: When someone set up the article about the San Diego Trolley, in addition to the main article which is fine, they created twenty or more individual articles about individual trolley stops. Each stop is already listed on the main page, so the articles about the individual stops are redundant, and most of them are stubs.

Here’s the list of pages I would propose for deletion:


 * San Ysidro Transit Center
 * Gillespie Field (San Diego Trolley station)
 * Arnele Avenue (San Diego Trolley station)
 * El Cajon Transit Center
 * Amaya Drive (San Diego Trolley station)
 * Grossmont Transit Center
 * Santee Town Center (San Diego Trolley station)
 * 70th Street (San Diego Trolley station)
 * Alvarado Medical Center (San Diego Trolley station)
 * Mission San Diego (San Diego Trolley station)
 * Qualcomm Stadium (San Diego Trolley station)
 * Fenton Parkway (San Diego Trolley station)
 * Rio Vista (San Diego Trolley station)
 * Mission Valley Center (San Diego Trolley station)
 * Hazard Center (San Diego Trolley station)
 * Fashion Valley Transit Center
 * Morena/Linda Vista (San Diego Trolley station)

And possibly also, although they contain slightly more content than the pages listed above:
 * Old Town Transit Center
 * Grantville (San Diego Trolley station)

In addition, each of the three trolley lines has its own article: again duplicating what is at San Diego Trolley.
 * Blue Line (MTS)
 * Green Line (MTS)
 * Orange Line (MTS)

And then to complete the spam, they created FIVE special categories for all these semi-worthless pages! And also two special templates - which in themselves were given their own category! The categories are:


 * Category:San Diego Trolley stations
 * Category:San Diego Trolley lines
 * Category:San Diego Trolley
 * Category:San Diego Trolley templates
 * Category:San Diego Trolley Blue Line

I really thing this is spamming. There is no way all this stuff is "notable". A single article, San Diego Trolley, should be sufficient IMO. If you agree, can you take some action to clean house? Thanks a lot!

MelanieN (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)MelanieN


 * Keep. The common treatment on Wikipedia has been to allow separate articles for rail stations, including subway and light rail stations, (but not bus stops) because they are permanent nodes in the transportation network. There is generally a a lot of planning behind the stops' locations, and media often cover this stage so in most cases, it is also possible to source them reasonably. If we take one example, San Ysidro Transit Center, a look in the Google archives will generate hits for several then-topical articles covering the subject. Even if keeping articles separate were unfeasible, the correct procedure would be to merge or redirect the articles to the parent article San Diego Trolley, not deletion. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  12:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also a note to the nominator, "spamming" is a very negatively loaded term indicating that the articles were added in order to abuse Wikipedia in order to advertise a website link or a product. Accusing people of it should not be done unless you have solid evidence behind it in accordance with WP:AGF. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry if "spamming" is only used here to mean advertising. That was not my meaning. On the forums where I normally post, "spamming" simply means overwhelming the site with too many posts of little value.
 * However, I am surprised if Wikipedia normally allows such a flood of articles. They don't seem to serve any purpose. Does Wikipedia also normally allow five separate categories, to keep track of all the articles about a single rail service? MelanieN (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)MelanieN


 * Delete. Trolley stops a bit too trivial for the encyclopedia. Not quite the volume of a true rapid transit system that might justify such entries. Just a regular bus with very few, heavily subsidized riders just like many smaller cities. Not quite the impact of London's Piccadilly Circus tube station. I blanch if we allow these. We will be flooded with not just bus trivia but Lord knows what else. Bicycle paths? Nature trails? Park and ride parking lots? We need to draw the line on trivia. Having said this, a policy may need to be updated or presented, to state this overtly so we don't have to reinvent the wheel next time. Student7 (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep articles on this light-rail system's stations. Fg2 (talk) 03:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep We do not keep individual bus stops, because they move around a good deal and have trivial structural components, but we do includes individual subway and rail stations, because they do not move around much, and normally have quite substantial components--so substantial that there is usually a good deal to find about  their planning (which can be quite controversial), construction, the lines that go through them, their influence on the neighborhood, and so on. Though called "trolley" (probably as the long-awaited successor to their previously-destroyed earlier streetcar system, which were true trolleys) these are really light rail -- or rail -- part of the system is a rehabilitated railroad. It's routine practice here to keep all light rail permanent stations. Even so, the list is not well chosen. Some of the stations  are major hubs, even if it is not reflected in the article, for example San Ysidro Transit Center is the southern terminal, at an international crossing point. If we had a policy of adding only the most important stations, we  have to judge by the station, not the present condition of the article. The thing to do is not delete en mass, but work to improve. DGG (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.