Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jones and Beach station


 * 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 Speedy keep. GiantSnowman 13:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Jones and Beach station

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Similar to Articles for deletion/Manchester Avenue station, a big batch of non-notable streetcar/light rail stops that have little to no infrastructure (stops at sidewalks, concrete slabs in the road, etc  Cards84664  (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:




 * Speedy keep: this is a vastly different situation than Manchester - the stops have individual histories that are well-documented in primary and secondary sources. A number of these articles are easily start class or above by my efforts, unlike the Manchester articles that were the same two sentences on every article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete These are not stations, they are stops. They have no infrastructure that would make them a "station" and a bus stop shelter does not make them notable should they be renamed. Yes, many of these are longer than a couple sentences, but the content at Ocean and Fairfield / Ocean and Victoria stations, for example, is about the history of the metro line, not the stop itself, and is largely duplicated across articles (as it is copied and pasted to Ocean and Aptos station, among others on the same line). I had trouble finding sources about specific stops themselves rather than the lines or segments thereof. Whatever little unique information there is could be merged into their respective lines like K Ingleside or a List of K Ingleside stops. Reywas92Talk 04:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't know what to do with stops like Oakdale/Palou station. Is there a notability threshold for full platforms on a streetcar line?  Cards84664  (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , these are all stops if they are in the median of a road. I don't think there is a difference between high and low level platforms. epicgenius (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete all these are just stops on a streetcar line, they are not railway stations, and do not merit seperate articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: If these are kept, they should be moved from Xxx station to Xxx stop to more accurately describe their actual status. Useddenim (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all per the comments above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to respective line lists and keep all non-repeating citations intact.  Cards84664  (talk) 05:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that there needs to be a broader discussion, because I have seen articles like these on RTD in Denver, among other places. Do we keep HBLR stops in medians? How about Downtown Long Beach station on the Blue Line (Los Angeles Metro). I think a discussion should be made before the decision is made.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, merge or redirect depending on the notability of each place individually but all transit stops should be mentioned, at least, on a list of stops on the line and/or system and those without articles should reidrect to such a list. Deletion will bring no benefits over merging and may hinder the development of an article in future if notability increases. Thryduulf (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. It's difficult to consider 100 articles as a batch. Some are fairly well-sourced and could pass the GNG. Some apparently have infrastructure beyond a sign, and are discussed in reliable sources. WP:BEFORE isn't required, but it's a good idea, and could have teased out some of these issues before a somewhat perfunctory mass nomination. It's disappointing that the nominator didn't engage anyone working in this space first, and I'm a bit puzzled as to why not. The precedents are tricky; Articles for deletion/Manchester Avenue station and Articles for deletion/36th and Market station pointed toward merging in large part because of the copy-paste "X is a stop" nature of the articles, which doesn't hold true for this batch (some are, some aren't). I think it might be a worthwhile endeavor to create a guideline for situations like these, because there are corner cases. I think everyone would agree that physical stations are notable, but what if a light rail line has both physical stations and stops? Ease of navigation might suggest the stops be broken out into their own articles (or not, anchors could handle that well enough). Mackensen (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge, per . Useddenim (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. On the one hand, I agree with Mackensen that some of these stops are probably notable as standalone articles. Physical stations are definitely notable. However, I also think that the existing List of Muni Metro stations article can also be expanded. Some of these subjects are basically little more than a sign on the sidewalk, and their corresponding articles consist of "X is a stop", a coordinates template, a succession box, and an image. So it may be fair to merge these articles. However, there are also some light rail stops that may have significant notability on their own. On a side note, I noticed that some of the stops with high-level platforms, as well as T Third Street stops (which all have real platforms and waiting areas) are not included in this AFD. epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, I agree with Useddenim in that these are more appropriately "stops" and not "stations". This naming format is already used elsewhere (e.g. Category:MTR Light Rail stops) This should be a system-wide guideline under WP:USSTATION, but that is another discussion altogether. epicgenius (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy close: this is a way-too-wide/overreach deletion request. As others have mentioned, it's feasible some of the proposed pages don't deserve articles, but it's inappropriate to be considering them en masse. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge a lot of Muni stops are simply bus signs with maybe a yellow line on the street to correspond, making an article for each one is almost akin to making an article for every bus stop that Muni or another agency has, I agree with a previous call to perhaps focus on expanding the list of Muni Metro stations instead.  TITAN O SAURUS  08:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge. per Epicgenius and Mackensen. AmericanAir88(talk) 02:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, how can editors be expected to research over 80 articles at one time, lets say 5mins per article (at best a perfunctory search) makes over 3 1/2 hours (not counting coffee/chockie breaks:)), as for throwaway line "most are only stops/a sign and paint only" of a lot of the "deleters" this is irrevelant if there are sources available, merge/redirect discussions can then be had on each article talkpage. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep There should be a set limit on to how many articles are bundled into an AfD. Like I've said in the past it makes our lives difficult if there are so many to check over if the nominators rationale is as vague as this one. Would recommend starting an RFC about it, as for UK stations/tram stops all are inherently notable (as to why/who suggested it however I haven't the foggiest) whereas for stations elsewhere in the world the majority are deleted with the obvious exceptions... Night<b style="color: White">fury</b> 08:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Way too many articles nominated to consider in bulk. I'd be open to reviewing individual articles, but a bulk nomination of 100+ articles with widely differing coverage is inappropriate. Smartyllama (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - And absurd amount of topics to investigate, flesh out and debate in one AfD. This AfD needs to die quickly. Oakshade (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - I've tried closing this AFD but so far it's not working! - Absurd nomination - No one can research 98 articles within 7 days. – Davey 2010 Talk 13:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.