Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brindleyplace tram stop (2nd nomination)


 * 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 merge to Midland Metro. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 18:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Brindleyplace tram stop
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article was deleted a long time ago as a then-planned tram stop without notability. It has been recreated a few years later as a planned tram top without notability. Of the three sources in the article, the first one (Lidland Metro) doesn't mntion Brindleyplace, the sond one (Railnews) doesn't mention Brindleyplace, and the third is a primary source which mentions Brindley Place (with space) a few times. No evidence of any notability for this proposed tram stop could be found. Fram (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Together with this article, I also nominate the other articles on planned tram stops on this line, which all have the same lack of notability. Fram (talk) 12:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Centenary Square tram stop
 * Edgbaston tram stop
 * Horseley Road tram stop
 * Piper's Row tram stop
 * Sedgley Road tram stop
 * Victoria Square tram stop


 * Keep. The notability of tram stops has already been established. So why should future tram stops be different. The other reasons given are spurious. G-13114 (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This tram stop (the first nominated article) has already been deleted through AFD, so your argument seems to be incorrect. But feel free to link to a page showing a global consensus that tram stops are notable. I checked WP:N and the linked notability guidelines, and none seem to support your claim though. Fram (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Note the canvassing by the first opposer above. A great way to get supposedly like-minded people here. Fram (talk) 13:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Someone has to notify relevant wikiprojects, though I accept the wording is problematic. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The issue of deleting Midland Metro tram stops has come up before, and there has never been any consensus for it see Articles for deletion/St Paul's tram stop for example. This article was deleted before it was confirmed that it would be built. It has been confirmed now, so the situation is different now. If these are deleted now, then they will just be recreated again in a few years when they have opened, so there is no logical reason to delete them. G-13114 (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Existing tram stops are hardly the same as planned tram stops, and a "no consensus" debate is no evidence at all that "the notability of tram stops has already been established" as you claimed. Perhaps these ones will be built, perhaps not, a lot can happen between now and then (many "confirmed" things never happen in the end). There is no logical reason to have these articles already, and opposing deletion because they will be recreated in a few years time anyway is a nice example of what WP:CRYSTAL is all about. Fram (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: if people want some more recent evidence that the supposed consensus that all tram stops are notable doesn't exist, they can check e.g. Articles for deletion/Little Bispham tram stop (Blackpool) (from 2014), where 22 tram stop articles were nominated and the verdict was "merge". Among older ones,one can find Articles for deletion/Wilkinson Street tram stop (2007, delete), Articles for deletion/Hatchford Brook tram stop (2008, delete), Articles for deletion/Bull Street tram stop (2008, redirect), Articles for deletion/Herdings Park supertram stop (2007, 5 articles, delete)... One can find AfDs closed as keep as well, but there obviously is no consensus at all that these get kept by default, and even less so for future ones. Fram (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to an article about the proposed extension, until such time as the design is finalised. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge all to Midland Metro until such time as a definitive commitment and timescale to build is given. Est8286 (talk) 03:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC) Vote struck, have changed my mind. Est8286 (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge as proposed above, as they are all nearly identical in content. Useddenim (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, Again, merging them would make no sense, as they would just have to be recreated again in a few years time. And where exactly are you proposing that they be merged? G-13114 (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Midland Metro. Useddenim (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes but for what purpose? They will only be recreated in a few years time. What's the point in deleting them now? The New Street to Centenary Square extension is pretty much guaranteed now. The rest has funding committed. G-13114 (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Victoria Square tram stop and Centenary Square tram stop. These are shown in S. K. Baker's Rail Atlas of Great Britain and Ireland (14th edition, 2015) which can be considered an RS. I agree with the idea of merging the rest with the proviso that they can be reverted to full articles when/if they are shown in a future edition or similar material. Optimist on the run (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * How are they notable? Where is the significant attention in secondary reliable sources? Fram (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Define "significant". In this case it proves that they exist, or will do. Or do you consider that they would only become notable when opened? A quick internet search provides other sources as well - e.g. . Optimist on the run (talk) 13:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Roads exist, can be found on maps, but (in general) are not notable. Things become notable by meeting the requirements from the notability guideline, not by simply existing (with very few exceptions, like geographical features). The source you give, Centro, is obviously not an independent source, a secondary source about these stops, but the authority overseeing (funding, organizing, I haven't checked their exact role) these tram lines. Looking at e.g. the situation in Belgium (where I am from), very few tram stops are notable (many are nothing more than simple bus stops, but along a tram line instead of along a road; only the underground stations are generally considered notable). Of course, more elaborate ones or otherwise exceptional ones may be notable, but simply existing (and of course even less simply being planned) is far from enough to be notable. Fram (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment While the Centro source is primary, it is not invalid per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Centro are (or at the time were) the overseeing government body. Est8286 (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously that source isn't bad and should be used in such articles: however, we are not dealing with WP:V here, but with WP:N: primary sources do not establish or support any notability, only independent secondary sources can do this. Fram (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep have come across some third party cites, will add in due course. Est8286 (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Care to share them? Without them, your vote is unsupported by evidence and should be disregarded. Fram (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  16:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge / redirect to Midland Metro. I found this passing mention but that's about it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect all. We do not need an article for every run-of-the-mill tram stop, much less non-existant ones. Fails WP:N.Charles (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon  05:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect as this is enough. SwisterTwister   talk  05:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge these to Midland Metro § Line One (Birmingham City Centre) extension and Midland Metro § Line Two eastside extension, respectively. For example, Brindleyplace tram stop presently has no mention of the topic other than a link to this article in the table at the end of the section. This will make the merge target more accurate, which is functional as per Wikipedia's purpose as a gazetteer. For example, see WP:5P and the basic information page Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which states, "Wikipedia is freely available, and incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." North America1000 06:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect per 's suggestion above makes sense. I agree that extant tram stops should likely be considered notable in line with our purpose as a gazetteer, but the same certainly cannot be said for tram stops that do not exist (and have not existed). Still, it's sensible to include in a parent article. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:52, 4 July 2016 (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.