Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Court Street (BMT Fulton Street Line)


 * 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. WP:SNOW keep. I'd really appreciate if someone with an automated tool could remove the templates and put notes on talkpages since the script I am using does not allow me to do it. Thanks in advance. Tone 23:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ with help from –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  01:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Court Street (BMT Fulton Street Line)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Over about a 10-day period (mostly the last 3 days), a new editor has created about 175 new articles for non-notable New York City railway and elevated stations demolished long ago. The articles are in general cookie-cutter copies of one another, extremely brief, unreferenced, do not assert any notability. There is no reasonable probability that any of these could ever be developed into a proper article. The editor has declined multiple requests to participate in a discussion, to improve the article, or to heed basic advice, such as Your first article. The full list is given below. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)




 * Merge into articles about the former lines. --NE2 15:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge or Redirect per NE2, with the following exceptions; Sands Street (BMT station), which could be expanded, and Franklin Avenue (BMT Fulton Street Line) original station which could easily be merged into Franklin Avenue (New York City Subway). Also, if you don't mind, I'd like to rename a lot of the stations with numbered streets before they're merged or redirected. DanTD (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect is fine with me too. A very large number of these articles don't conform to the usual naming convention, but it is harmless if they are redirected. Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all. Stubs are harmless, and railway stations are inherently notable. References should be available from local newspapers (and perhaps architectural and engineering journals) from the period these stations were being planned, designed and built, and possibly from later periods as well in case a crime or other major incident took place at a particular station. The fact that references can't easily be found using Google doesn't mean that the references don't exist. Someone with access to microfilm copies of newspapers from the communities served ought to be able to find some front-page headlines about celebrations surrounding the opening of a given station, in light of the way stations historically transformed a community (or, for a subway station, transformed a neighborhood). -- Eastmain (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep: if being short or cookie-cutter was an argument for deletion, there'd be no content at all. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are already articles for the lines of which these stations were a part, which generally contain the identical information. A redirect can always be undone if someone discovers that 1 or 2 of these 175 stations was actually newsworthy on its own. Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair point. I guess this leads to the discussion of what generates more improvement, red links or annoying stubs? Suddenly the last WikiWeekly seems oddly topical... Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment the problem is not that these stations no longer exist, but that the stations (at least the elevated ones) were essentially constructed as cookie-cutter copies of each other. It would be much better to present them together, detailing the design once rather than hundreds of times. --NE2 16:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Footnote -- In my effort to rename the articles prior to redirection, I found something interesting; This user has created 155 Street (IRT Ninth Avenue Line) article, despite the fact that a 155th Street (IRT Ninth Avenue Line) already exists. I think I'll just redirect this one myself. DanTD (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My mistake; It wasn't the same user. But that doesn't mean there's no call for a merger there. DanTD (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Inherently notable and the articles that I looked at (admittedly not all) seem to be appropriate. Also, I would not necessarily conclude that they couldn't be developed further. There have been numerous books written about the historic NYC subway lines, and some of these may well contain information that would allow further expansion. Rlendog (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all there is probably enough to say about nay one subway station to write a short book, not just a Wikipedia article. This is all the more true of demolished stations than of present ones, because there will be stories not just bout the planning and the construction, but about the decision to close, and then the actual demolition. But there is no need for an article to be developed further to stay in wp.  Wikipedia is not"the free encylopedia that anyone can edit if they make the articles long enough" Subway stations  are major installations just like railroad stations. DGG (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all articles about railroad (including surface and subway) stations. Wikipedia is proud of its extensive coverage of former stations. They would have met Wikipedia's notability criteria while they were open (if Wikipedia had been around) and notability doesn't change. I agree with points made by DGG, Rlendog, Eastmain and others. Fg2 (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep All Per DGG. Sam  Blab 01:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP per discussion above. We have several examples of short/stub articles about disused railway stations in several parts around the world; see Caradog Falls Halt railway station and the categories Disused railway stations in Wales, Disused railway stations in Scotland, Disused railway stations in England etc. Most articles start out as short stubs; that doesn't make them candidates for deletion. Cookie-cutter is not a valid argument for deletion either; take a look at the hundreds of similar articles in List of minor planets. Most importantly, these articles impart information that our readers might be looking for. That's what an encyclopedia is, and Wikipedia is the best encyclopedia around. Truthanado (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and listify per NE2's suggestion. Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per NE2 unless some sources can be added. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Given that we, pretty much without question, routinely keep articles about existing subway stations, former stations should be given the same treatment since notability is not temporary. At the very least, they should be merged with the old line in case there is not enough material to make a reasonable article, but given that these articles are very new we should give them time before initiating merge discussions. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all - As with a proposal last year to delete many articles on numbered streets on Manhattan Island, this is an excessively general proposal. Railway stations are generally notable, as they have an impact on their surrounding neighbourhood. Sources should be sought for the reasons that the rail companies sited their stations where they did, notable events that occured in or around each station, service histories for each station, any notable details about their archtecture or engineering, and the reasons for their closure. In the event that these details are essentially identical for a set of stations positioned close together and built to a common plan, a shared article on that section of line might be appropriate. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As per Eastmain and Maury's statements. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:50, 28 January 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.