Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FCCJ (Jacksonville Skyway)


 * 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 '''"Use my penknife, my good man!" (Keep)''' &mdash; Caknuck 19:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

FCCJ (Jacksonville Skyway)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article does not satisfy the necessary requirements for a rail transport station. As the article stands at the moment, there is not much more detail that can be added to it than already exists. The entire JTA Skyway system is only 2.5 mi and all of the line's eight stations are within close proximity of each other. As a member of WikiProject Rapid transit, I am usually in favor of rail station articles, however all these stations are identical to each other, and are only a couple blocks apart, and all the little information in the article can be covered in the main article, JTA Skyway. These changes were implemented into the main article in a previous edit, however were restored by another editor who did not agree with the changes. I am also nominating the following related pages because these are the other seven stations of the JTA Skyway, also not notable enough to have their own articles:

– Dream out loud (talk) 01:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect to JTA Skyway. Anyone interested can merge the small detail in the articles from History. Essentially they are articles about transit stops that will likely only be mentioned in the press as existing. There is no meat for separate articles on these stops - Peripitus (Talk) 02:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep unless we are supposed to delete the stations for the Sheppard subway or Scarborough RT in Toronto, each of which has fewer stations. The same goes for the shuttle in Brooklyn.  Rather than having them deleted, efforts should be made to include more information.  Otherwise, we're going to have to merge each system's subway stations into a single article, like is proposed here.  dcandeto 02:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per strong precedent that such systems and their stations are all notable. Alansohn 02:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per long standing precedent and WP:OUTCOMES, such stations are notable. --Oakshade 02:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per WP:OUTCOMES, stations are inherently notable by precedent. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 03:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment to the last 3 editors. There is no doubt the system is notable but WP:OUTCOMES does not support inclusion of these stations. What is really missing here is verifyability from reliable sources - it's hard to see how anyone would have (and I cannot find any records of) written about these simple train stops. - Peripitus (Talk) 05:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge with JTA Skyway. (I was the one who merged them after seeing them prod-ed). I agree with that WP:OUTCOMES usually calls for keeping these as separate articles, but I think that it is more useful and easier for the reader to keep what information is here in the main article. All the eight articles are stubs, and the information can be reasonably added to the JTA Skyway article without bloating that article to unreasonable lengths. I don't view this as a question of deleting/including the info about these stations, but as a matter of how best to present it. In general, unless the article has become too long, keeping things in one article is easier. One can print out one (slightly) longer article instead of several small ones, and one does not need to click through a myriad of links in order to read it. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm sure sources can be found. They might be trivial, but that's okay, they're just train stations. — xDanielx T/C 06:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't understand that argument. If the sources are trivial, there's no point in keeping the article per WP:N. And "they're just train stations" is not an argument for keeping either, is it? --B. Wolterding 09:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * By that logic, we should also do away with disused Underground stations like Ongar; they're not even train stations. dcandeto 12:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but that's not under discussion here. --B. Wolterding 15:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And that's not a valid counter-argument, as it's not policy. dcandeto 22:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Pardon? Essays serve to summarize arguments. If you don't like links, here's the full text: "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article." This is my argument, ad please tell me why you think it's invalid. --B. Wolterding 09:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's say the result here is delete. If I put other articles for subway/train/rail transit stations (of a similar notability level—let's say Glencairn rather than Union or 23 St on the 1 line rather than Times Square) through the deletion process, and the result is that we should keep them, then the Skyway station articles can then be recreated, as they should also be kept per WP:N.  dcandeto 11:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the guideline that you cite (WP:N) does not call for precedents; it calls for independent sources, which need to be given for each article individually. And for the train stops we discuss here, none have been given. --B. Wolterding 16:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So you are in favor of deleting Glencairn and the 1 line's 23 St station, since they don't have independent sources (and Glencairn has none at all). Got it.  dcandeto 17:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we can ignore WP:N in favor of more specific guidelines and precedents -- just as we do for cities, highways, lists of related articles, etc. — xDanielx T/C 01:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If they are kept, we should rename them to "[station name] (JTA Skyway)". dcandeto 12:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with JTA Skyway. The articles about the stops are unexpanded stubs without their notabilty established (due to lack of independent sources). The little information contained is better presented in the JTA Skyway article. If more relevant information should become available at a later time, the articles can always be expanded again. --B. Wolterding 09:00, 11 September 2007 (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.