Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ontario Place 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 merge to Ontario Line. T. Canens (talk) 06:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Ontario Place station

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Merge into Ontario Line as this is simply a potential station of a (very recently) proposed new rapid transit line and isn't notable in and of itself. Joeyconnick (talk) 02:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep'. Notable as a bad idea that has been the subject of extensive coverage by reliable sources. The article is well-referenced. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , while the topic does receive coverage in RS, I do not believe it is independently notable of the subway line itself. I think what the references are describing is actually the western alignment of the Ontario Line, and I think that article would be a good place to put this information. BLAIXX 11:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. The proposed parent article, Ontario Line, is not very long. Actual rapid transit stations are generally considered notable, but this one is merely at the "proposed" stage, not even under construction. If the station becomes a reality, the article can be re-created. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge when it is under construction, then the article can be recreated. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The nomination does not contain a reason to delete and doesn't propose deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 07:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * AFD is allowed to weigh in on merge proposals, when warranted. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge per discussion on talk page; subject is not independently notable. Consider WP:PAGEDECIDE, "A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic." Also consider the proposed Yonge North subway extension. Clearly this topic receives coverage from RS, but at the same time there are no issues with it being described on the Line 1 page, and not as its own article. B</b><b style="color: #FD8F42">L</b><b style="color: #0096FF">A</b><b style="color: black">IXX</b> 11:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom and talk page discussion. This is certainly a thing that gets mentioned in coverage of either the Ontario Line proposal or the Ontario Place redevelopment scheme, but it is not yet the subject of any dedicated coverage about it independently of those contexts. If and when the line actually gets approved and construction is underway, then separate articles about each individual new station on the line will certainly become justified — but we don't already need a standalone article about the station as a separate topic in its own right as of today, especially when the natural parent article in which it can be discussed is only just barely longer than a stub anyway. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)v
 * Merge per disscused aboveGermcrow (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep In my opinion merge suggestions, like this one, where there are multiple related articles which could be merge targets, show the weaknesses of mergism. All the arguments made to merge to Ontario Line would apply just as well to Ontario Place.  Significant topics, notable topics, are usually intimately related to multiple other topics.
 * Our reader rarely read whole articles, particularly our longer articles. Instead they try and figure out how to read just the information they are interested in.  The wikipedia works best when our readers can click on a link and go to a small focussed article, that only talks about a single topic.
 * When readers can navigate to what might be the information they are interested in, by clicking on a link, the process of returning where they started, is trivial. All they hae to do is click on the "back" button.  However, where the urge to merge succeeds, returning where you came requires a lot of frustrating scrolling around, or the use of the search button.
 * When an actual notable topic -- like this one -- is nevertheless merged into a related article this means that some information won't have a place. The article on Ontario Place should link to Ontario Place station, and the article on the Ontario Line should link to Ontario Place station.  If we start an article on Proposals to build casinos at Ontario Place, it too should link to Ontario Place station.
 * Wouldn't it serve our readers just as well if the articles on Ontario Place and Proposals to build casinos at Ontario Place linked to a subsection of Ontario Line? Absolutely not.  This is generally true in every ill-advised urge to merge attempt.  There is information relevant to both Ontario Place and Ontario Place station that would not be relevant in Ontario Line.  And vice versa.
 * Some mergists here have claimed - in violation of WP:OTHERSTUFF, that we "never" create articles about stations, until they are under construction. This is only generally true, and the obvious reason for that is that most proposed stations don't yet measure up to GNG.  But Ontario Place station DOES measure up to GNG.  Geo Swan (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't yet measure up to GNG. As of today, it is merely a thing that gets mentioned in coverage whose core subject is either Ontario Place or the Ontario Line as a whole, and is not yet the subject of even one piece of dedicated coverage as its own standalone thing independently of those contexts. GNG is not "the topic gets its name mentioned in coverage of other things", it is "the topic is the primary subject of several substantive pieces of coverage in its own right as its own standalone thing". Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge or Delete As the Ontario Line itself is a proposal, it seems premature to have an Ontario Place station article. Also, the extensions to the Relief Line route are new and only exist as a proposal on a budget document. No design of stations, the routing is a bit vague. They have not been discussed nor preliminary concepts advanced. And specifically, there are no details to provide as a basis for a stand-alone article. Plenty of room in the Ontario Line article to include one sentence descriptions of the proposed stations. That should do until things progress. Alaney2k (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge Premature to have an article on a proposed station when the line itself was also just proposed. Reywas92Talk 16:22, 7 May 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.