Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knutsford services

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. I'll probably get some disagreement, but 59% is not good enough to me when you have a split like this. If you take just the merge/keep/delete votes and not include the separate Watford votes, it's actually a dead heat. Woohookitty 03:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Knutsford services, Corley services, Hilton Park services, Keele services, London Gateway Service Area, Watford Gap service station, Hopwood Park Services
These four (now six) articles were marked as speedy, but the discussion on Talk:Knutsford services prompted me to post these here on VFD instead. The question: do each of these motorway service stations in the UK noteworthy enough to have their own article? I abstain. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 29 June 2005 13:27 (UTC)

KEEP. Of course they're noteworthy enough - as are the others. They're known navigation points, each with a history (they rarely opened when the motorway did; they've changed hands, their services differ; and so on). Unless of course, you intend to delete the page for every non- major railway station in the UK, too. Andy Mabbett 29 June 2005 13:48 (UTC)
 * If someone has something to say about a high school, railway station, service station or phone box- and the information is noteworthy and worthwhile- then the article should remain. this however does not mean a stub should be created for each of these entities extant in the world on the off chance someone will write the article. Remember, this is an encyclopedia. Leonig Mig 29 June 2005 22:35 (UTC)

Keep Perfectly good stub. Proto t c 29 June 2005 13:54 (UTC)


 * Delete, service stations are not encyclopaedic. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. In fact, delete everything under Category:Motorway service stations in the UK. --bainer (talk) 29 June 2005 13:59 (UTC)

MERGE into UK Service Stations where we can explore the history and sociology of service stations, even list them all. They are collectively noteworthy, not individually. --Dave63 29 June 2005 14:15 (UTC)


 * It cannot be reasonably expected that anybody could write a meaningful article about these services. they consist of a burger king, food kiosks, some toilets, and little else. i beleive individual articles will contain nothing of note: I challenged the user who created them to produce more detail but he has not come forth with any detail, just his insistence they stay. Leonig Mig 29 June 2005 14:16 (UTC)
 * they consist of a burger king, food kiosks, some toilets, and little else Utter nonesense. Andy Mabbett 29 June 2005 14:21 (UTC)


 * Delete Why are petrol stations noteworthy? Who would look up an encyclopaedia for this of minimalist information?--Porturology 29 June 2005 14:25 (UTC)
 * They are not petrol stations. c/f railway stations. Andy Mabbett 29 June 2005 14:26 (UTC)
 * "Just north of junction 38 on the M6 you will find Westmorland Motorway Services. Both the northbound and southbound services have large farm shops which Prince Charles opened in early 2004. In 2003 they won Best Local Retailer in the BBC Radio 4 Food and Farming Awards." Doesn't sound like a petrol station to me. --Dave63 29 June 2005 14:40 (UTC)


 * Keep - these stubs communicate little, but then stubs are like that. I think there are some service stations that might not be notable, but these ones all are. Each one could be developed into an article with enough unique content to be worthy of inclusion. Naturenet | Talk 29 June 2005 14:44 (UTC)

Comment A lot more people use a service station every day than a school, yet schools are deemed notable and service stations not? Proto t c 29 June 2005 15:16 (UTC)
 * A school stub which was exactly the same as this (lacking in any relavant context or notable info) was deleted just this morning. Some schools are notable- others are not. Some service stations are of note. Most are not. 81.7.41.148 29 June 2005 18:05 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge into one article. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd June 29, 2005 15:29 (UTC)


 * Merge into one article, place redirects for all of these. It is doubtful that any of these will be anything more than a stub. A larger article inclusive of these stations is more appropriate. See Deletion policy, under "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article". There's a lot of work to 'undo' here to make the merge, but it needs to be done. --Durin 29 June 2005 15:58 (UTC)
 * Merge into one article. -- BD2412 talk June 29, 2005 16:05 (UTC)
 * Keep Watford Gap, Merge the rest - not notable individually, but maybe as a group. Shoaler 1 July 2005 12:28 (UTC)
 * Merge into the relevant M1 motorway, M6 motorway, etc. article. -- RHaworth 2005 June 29 16:15 (UTC)
 * Keep Do not merge. Merged articles cannot be adequately categorised. Merging is almost always a bad idea. CalJW 29 June 2005 16:19 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have expanded Watford Gap service station (which should be renamed "Watford Gap Service Area" if it survives) to show the kind of thing that can be done with these articles. Most of them have their own history and unique features, having been through several phases of development.  In this case I have not touched the architectural aspect of the subject, for example.&mdash;Theo  (Talk) 29 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)
 * Indeed there will be some of note, but to create an article for every single one in the country (which is what I caught POTW doing) is a bit silly. I beleive there is one service station on the M1 which is a listed building! There certainly could be an article about that. Leonig Mig 29 June 2005 17:34 (UTC)
 * ''caught?!?. Andy Mabbett 30 June 2005 23:56 (UTC)


 * Keep, unless Wikipaedia is to become a preserve information solely related to American schools, Australian politicians, Korean gamers and multinational companies. --Simon Cursitor 29 June 2005 18:10 (UTC)
 * Keep, like railway stations. Merging geographically distributed tansport nodes does not make sense. Kappa 29 June 2005 18:30 (UTC)
 * Keep. Dunc|&#9786; 29 June 2005 19:14 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge. They seem to be similar to travel plazas on US toll roads -- noteworthy enough as part of the road, but not on their own. --Carnildo 29 June 2005 20:57 (UTC)
 * Delete. No different from truck stops; just turnoffs where you can gas up and get a bite. At best they deserve brief mentions in the relevant motorways' articles, but these articles are useless on their own. "If we keep high schools, we must keep absolutely everything trivial" is not a convincing argument.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 29 June 2005 21:32 (UTC)
 * Keep. Falcon June 29, 2005 22:12 (UTC)
 * Certainly keep Watford Gap service station (which is a splendid example of an article about a quotidian but notable location): but the other ones should be merged into a single article about the phenomenon of UK service stations, unless they have a similiarly interesting story to tell. -- Karada 29 June 2005 22:42 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't think we should be treating the articles as one. Each article must be able to establish it's notability, if it cannot then it should be deleted. They're all on one VFD, and therefore we're voting on whether the topic as a whole is notable or not; which seems an unsual step compared to any other VFDs I've seen. -- Joolz 29 June 2005 23:04 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is in fact precedent for batch nominations when the articles are significantly similar in that the arguments for deletion are appliacable as a group (see Votes for deletion/Kanji articles for one recent example). There is also precedent for breaking the vote into separate votes if votes are split for some and against others.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 30 June 2005 04:54 (UTC)
 * Comment: While not common, it is a tool that is used at times. Another example is Votes for deletion/Bob Burns. Sometimes users see a group of articles "missing" and create them all in rapid fashion, before a discussion has a chance to decide what to do with such a group. Grouping them together in on VfD allows us an opportunity to discuss them as a whole, and not repeat the same discussions in a large array of VfDs. If there is a case to be made for some of the concerned articles, it will usually be made and that article or articles treated differently. Standard VfDs are easy affairs. This type of VfD is not; undoing the work of the original author is time consumptive, and requires a significant amount of attention to detail. Nevertheless, the outcome is productive, regardless of the voted result, as it pushes us ever on to a better version of the encyclopedia. --Durin 30 June 2005 14:04 (UTC)
 * Without wishing to attract censure for voting twice, may I comment that I find it an interesting version of a "better encyloapedia" that removes articles which a significant minority of its readers feel are worthwhile, when the main argument against them is merely non-notability. To a tone-deaf, boring old f*rt like me, endless articles on little-known rock bands are (effectively) "cruft", but I accept that someone somewhere will want to look them up.  I happen to feel that the sam can be said for locales and structures which have existed for, in some cases, 50 years, under constant development. \endrant --Simon Cursitor 30 June 2005 17:33 (UTC)
 * If you want to argue about VfD itself, rather than the articles under discussion, this is not the place to do it. Take it to a policy talkpage.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 30 June 2005 23:30 (UTC)
 * Keep Watford Gap. Merge and redirect the rest. David | Talk 29 June 2005 23:24 (UTC)
 * Merge into one article, place redirects for all of these. carmeld1 30 June 2005 02:35 (UTC)
 * Delete petrol stations are not inherently notable, as per Gwalla. JamesBurns 30 June 2005 03:23 (UTC)
 * service station != petrol station. Andy Mabbett 30 June 2005 08:44 (UTC)
 * Merge into one, except Watford Gap which is sufficient to have it's own article. -- Joolz 30 June 2005 09:27 (UTC)


 * Merge the lot of them. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; June 30, 2005 12:46 (UTC)
 * Merge. I agree these would be better as one article.  .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 16:19 (UTC)
 * Keep Watford Gap, which is significantly more well known than the others. Merge the others as previously suggested. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 30 June 2005 16:23 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge somewhere and expand. --SPUI (talk) 30 June 2005 19:01 (UTC)
 * Merge. I didn't think them important enough for their own articles: I left them unlinked at creation of the exit box list. Keep Watford Gap though, as above. --Erath 30 June 2005 19:08 (UTC)
 * Keep. James F. (talk) 1 July 2005 10:17 (UTC)

To help clear up the tangled mess: The votes so far can be broken down as: At this point, it seems likely the turnout of this will be merge. I'd like to suggest that those who have not stated anything in particular regarding Watford Gap do so in addition to their other votes, as I think we'll need some concensus with that article. Personally, I agree Watford Gap should be kept. --Durin 30 June 2005 21:59 (UTC)
 * Straight keep: 9
 * Straight merge: 7
 * Keep or merge: 1
 * Delete or merge: 3
 * Merge, but retain Watford: 6
 * Using a pro-keep perspective: 10
 * Using a pro-merge perspective: 17
 * Keep Watford Gap, merge the rest. Leonig Mig 30 June 2005 22:07 (UTC)
 * Leonig Mig has voted twice; once to delete, once to merge. Andy Mabbett 1 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)
 * This is not the case, I have simply stated my position as per Watford Gap as requested by Durin.Leonig Mig 1 July 2005 10:04 (UTC)
 * vote 1
 * vote 2
 * I note that you have since deleted your first vote and retained the second . Andy Mabbett 1 July 2005 11:12 (UTC)
 * well I didn't want anyone else to misinterpret my vote the way you did. i am new to wikipedia, i have never been involved in one of these before. i can't see why you need to hound me like this. i'm sorry if i gave the impression of voting twice, i just wanted to express my approval of Watford Gap.Leonig Mig 1 July 2005 11:21 (UTC)
 * Cease making paranoid accsuations. You have already been wearned about, and apologised for this, once User_talk:Pigsonthewing.
 * In that case I apologied if it appeared I was being uncivil to you and asked you to try and be civil yourself. I apologise if it appeared i was voting twice, certainly that was not my intention. I edited merely to prevent other making the same mistake.Leonig Mig 1 July 2005 11:33 (UTC)


 * Keep all the notable ones (e.g. Watford Gap, Leicester Forest East, etc.) but delete or merge all the non-notable ones (e.g. Knutsford, Corley, etc.).    &mdash; P Ingerson (talk) 1 July 2005 10:12 (UTC)
 * Keep all of them.   ‡   Jarlaxle   July 1, 2005 10:19 (UTC)
 * Keep all. OpenToppedBus - My Talk July 1, 2005 11:39 (UTC)
 * I have expanded Corley services and Hilton Park services. This was done very quickly, based on little more than a quick googling. They are still stubs, but I hope they will at least convince people of the fact that there is something to say about these. They are at least as notable as railway stations. I would urge merge and delete voters to reconsider. OpenToppedBus - My Talk July 1, 2005 15:36 (UTC)
 * Query: Is there a procedure to re-start a VFD, where the subject(s) have chenged so radically? Andy Mabbett 1 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)
 * Wait until it has closed and then re-nominate the articles. --bainer (talk) 3 July 2005 08:37 (UTC)
 * Excellent in theory. Difficult once the Cabal have successfully deleted the article, whereas you thought they had changed enough to be worth keeping.--Simon Cursitor 3 July 2005 18:02 (UTC)
 * Should you believe that an article has been deleted inappropriately, you can ask an administrator to undelete it. Most of us will respond by reviewing the VfD and will restore the article if the deletion is mistaken.&mdash;Theo  (Talk) 3 July 2005 18:42 (UTC)
 * Votes for undeletion is the place to go to reverse a deletion if you believe it went against process or the article had sufficiently changed between nomination and deletion that the arguments for deletion no longer applied. It isn't really relevant in this case, because it looks unlikely that these articles will be deleted (consensus seems to be to merge). BTW, accusations of an evil Wikipedia conspiracy are unlikely to make people take your arguments seriously.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 3 July 2005 21:51 (UTC)

Keep Watford Gap, merge everything else into one general motorway services article: adding trivia to the minor ones doesn't make them the least bit more notable ("My god! Corley has a fibreglass-clad concrete footbridge!"). --Calton | Talk 3 July 2005 04:57 (UTC)
 * The fibreglass may be of little import; but the existence of the footbridge (not all MSSs have them) is useful to know about, for anyone wanting to meet up with someone travelling in the opposite direction. Andy Mabbett 6 July 2005 13:18 (UTC)
 * Would anyone seriously consult an encyclopedia for that? Ever?   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 6 July 2005 16:42 (UTC)


 * Merge smaller stubbish ones into their respective motorway articles (plenty of space in there and no need to break out onto seperate pages unless and until more is written) and keep expanded ones like Watford Gap. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 6 July 2005 17:21 (UTC)


 * In what way is a 13:19 split a consensus? Andy Mabbett 8 July 2005 17:53 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please see Guide to Votes for deletion. It is up to the administrator who closes this VfD to determine whether such concensus exists. In my opinion, there's somewhat weak concensus with 59% in favor of merging the articles. If I were an administrator, I would most likely close this VfD and indicate the contents of the articles (excepting Watford) should be merged into Motorway service area (UK). You are welcome to disagree with me. However, I'm not the person who will be closing this VfD. I'm simply trying to clarify the situation as it stands now, in a complex situation. --Durin 8 July 2005 19:16 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.