Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central subway (Boston)


 * 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Central subway (Boston)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This stub was created by Dicklyon as a POV fork during a capitalization disagreement. It does not and will never contain any information not found in Green Line (MBTA) (as the Central Subway is the set of tunnels used by the Green Line, two of which already have separate articles), and should be redirected to it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep – The MBTA Green Line article only says "The Green Line is based around the central subway, a group of tunnels which run through the urban core of Boston." with reference to an MIT master's thesis that has only a narrow throwaway definition "There are a total of 28 active AVI sites located throughout the 22.9 miles of the Green Line. The Central Subway, defined as Kenmore Station to North Station, has the highest coverage while the surface portions have fewer, and thus lower granularity." I've been finding a bit more, though it's still pretty stubby; there doesn't seem to be much of a real definition or consensus on exactly what it is, so different POVs on that are worth mentioning.  The Green Line is a service.  The subway is infrastructure.  Dicklyon (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Obvious POV fork is Obvious. There should almost never be two separate articles about subjects so interconnected. Qwirkle (talk) 00:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no other article on these tunnels. The central subway is barely mentioned at Green Line (MBTA), and not defined. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is extensively covered in the articles on the Tremont Street Subway and its extensions; the only thing this ads is POV slant and bad grammar. (took nearly 200 cars per hour off the congested Tremont Street.) Qwirkle (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That article is mostly focused on the first tunnel; barely mentions the Boylston Street subway, which has its own article, and doesn't mention "central subway" at all. No article covers the system of tunnels known as the central subway. Dicklyon (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That article is mostly focused on the first tunnel; barely mentions the Boylston Street subway Hence the explicit mention of “and its extensions” above. Answered before asked. Qwirkle (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, so you're saying that the pieces of the central subway are covered in a couple of articles on one piece each, and a couple of other articles. I agree. Dicklyon (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Labeling this as a POV fork (which would, in most cases, give reasonable grounds for deletion) is a misrepresentation by the nom. This is a content fork in which the nom disagrees with the capitalisation used for the article title.  There is a process for dealing with that issue.  Capitalisation of the title is guided by MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS and is determined on the basis of objective evidence of capitalisation in sources.  While not explicitly an RM discussion atm, there is such a discussion occurring at the article TP at the present.  Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And we can make it an RM discussion if someone proposes to cap it. Dicklyon (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The obsession with shrinkage aside, that would still be an article which directly parallels other articles. If it differed at all in viewpoint, it would be a POV fork by definition. If it covered the same ground from the same POV it would be a waste of the reader’s time.Qwirkle (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Unless it can be shown that Central subway is the same as Green Line (MBTA) or Tremont Street Subway, then it warrants its own article. Hzh (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That’s already been largely conceded by the article’s creator, just a few lines up on the page. Qwirkle (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Certainly not. The central subway includes the Tremont Street subway and is used by the Green Line.  It's not the same as either. Dicklyon (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hence the “largely’. Again, already answered. Qwirkle (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have evidence, then provide it yourself, don't try to put words into other people's mouth. Hzh (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn’t need to. OK, so you're saying that the pieces of the central subway are covered in a couple of articles on one piece each, and a couple of other articles. I agree. says it all. All of the components of the Central Subway are covered in existing articles. The creator of this fork conceded that already. Qwirkle (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Which is not saying that they are the same. Provide evidence yourself if you can, whatever anyone else said is irrelevant. Otherwise I would just assume you don't have any evidence. Hzh (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per the hecka ton of sources present in the article. I have read all of the above arguments that this is a POV fork, and I do not find them compelling. When Dicklyon said that "the pieces of the central subway are covered in a couple of articles on one piece each, and a couple of other articles," the point that they were making is that this article is not a fork of a single article. If some pieces of a subject are covered in one place, and other pieces in another, then an article on that subject is not a fork. I also want to draw Qwirkle's attention to WP:BLUDGEON, which says: "Bludgeoning is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view... Typically, the person replies to almost every "!vote" or comment, arguing against that particular person's point of view." Qwirkle has taken up too much room in this discussion, and I suggest that they take a step back, and allow other editors to look at the article and the sources, and make their own assessment. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Three or so points. First, it is not only possible to have a POV fork well sourced, it is indeed possible to have a POV fork which is sourced to exactly the same sources as the parallel article. This is an irrelevancy; if this is your only justification for keeping it, you ought to strike your vote. Next, whether this is a fork of one article, or several doesn’t seem to change whether it is a POV fork or not, how do you you see it as doing so? Next, each response I’ve posted here is to a separate point, or a direct reply. Are you suggesting inaccuracies, real or perceived, should be left to stand based on how many previous problems have been noted? Qwirkle (talk) 01:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge into green line. No need for separate article. Tremont Street has separate article but this is because it is notable as being US oldest underground railway.User:Davidstewartharvey

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2020 (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.