Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silver Street railway 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 of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 talk July 7, 2005 17:25 (UTC)

Silver Street railway station
I used this railway station recently, and I can tell you from direct first-hand personal experience there is nothing notable or even interesting about it at all. It's bad enough we have to have articles about every non-notable pokemon, school, etc. Maybe we'll at least be able to get rid of the non-notable stations. After all, the only people who'll miss them are the trainspotters... &mdash; P Ingerson (talk) 1 July 2005 12:21 (UTC)
 * Keep. If we can have articles about every subway station, we should keep articles about railway stations. Sjakkalle (Check!)  1 July 2005 12:27 (UTC)
 * Comment. Ok, let's delete some articles about non-notable subway stations too. Seriously.  What is it about the completist nature of some Wikipedians that makes them want to iclude articles on every subway station, every Pokemon, every river, etc. instead of only the best, most important, most notable ones???     &mdash; P Ingerson (talk) 1 July 2005 12:49 (UTC)
 * For starters, the phrases "Wikipedia is not paper" and "If it's notable and has had an impact on a few thousand people, it's probably in our encyclopedia's domain. That's not to say we lack mainstream topics you'll find in Britannica, World Book, and Encarta. We generally meet or exceed their quality on those subjects. It's just we like to have a little bit of fun at the end of the day." Almafeta 1 July 2005 13:22 (UTC)
 * I've never understood that argument. I'd gladly delete articles on some "mainstream topics you'll find in Britannica, World Book, and Encarta" too.  e.g. William IV of the United Kingdom was a pretty non-notable monarch, and no-one would really miss him if we deleted his article.  The only I haven't nominated him is that I know that the completists would all vote to keep him and I'd lose.  OTOH Silver Street station is such a dump that I can't imagine anyone actually wanting to keep it based on its own merits.    &mdash; P Ingerson (talk) 1 July 2005 13:50 (UTC)
 * Comment: You see, to the dogmatic hyperpreservationists, "merits" are irrelevant. Only existence (or the possibility of existence: they're not big on verifiability either) matters. People who vote on articles after actually evaluating them are to be mocked and ostracized; they've already managed to drive RickK off.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 1 July 2005 20:31 (UTC)
 * Comment: I can buy the idea of some people wanting to delete a railway station article--perhaps one could argue that they're not that interesting to anybody--but I find that suggestion of deleting William IV of the United Kingdom utterly baffling. Don't read it if you don't find it interesting, but why delete it?  It defies reason. That goes beyond the parameters of the inclusionist/deletionist framework, I should hope we'd all agree that William IV is not deletion material by any stretch of the imagination. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 3 July 2005 14:18 (UTC)
 * Comment: Because William IV was not one of the most notable kings of the United Kingdom. I'd like Wikipedia to have articles on only the most notable Kings, only the most notable stations, only the most notable Pokemons, only the most notable schools, etc.  Having articles about inferior kings, inferior schools, inferior Pokemons, etc. makes Wikipedia inferior.  And you don't want that do you?     &mdash; P Ingerson (talk) 4 July 2005 10:21 (UTC)
 * Well this is where the problem begins. You say that William IV was "not one of the most notable kings of the United Kingdom."  Leaving aside the question of whether a monarch is intrinsically notable (I think most people would concede that this is the case) you are stating your judgement of whether or not William was notable.  And yet the article itself tells us all about his active role in walking into the House of Lords in the middle of a debate and proroguing Parliament in 1831.  And in 1834 he became the last monarch to appoint a Prime Minister against the will of Parliament, when he chose the Tory Robert Peel to govern with a Parliament having a Whig majority.  And you say this guy isn't notable?  Surely some mistake! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 4 July 2005 19:20 (UTC)
 * CoMmEnT Yeah, the reason why every one wants to include every single school, train station, antique shop, fire hydrant, street sign, every song ever recorded, every business, company, corporation, every single insect in the world right now, every video game ever produced, every product ever manufactured, every building in which that product was manufactured, the definition of manufacture, the latin root for hand, every history about nothing, is because many wikipedia contributors lack topics to write about thus including non-notable things with the argument of inclusionism gives them that opportunity to contribute just like they see everyone else doing. Me I do nothing. That is all, goodday! Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 13:56 (UTC)
 * Keep; people look up railway stations in encyclopaedias. Anyway, it's not possible to have "first hand experience" of the station's entire history and potential notability james gibbon  1 July 2005 17:30 (UTC)
 * Keep for the sake of completeness. Kappa 1 July 2005 19:09 (UTC)
 * Delete. Irrelevant minutiae. I wonder if some people would vote to keep an article on the Berkeley Amtrak station (a broken bench by the tracks under an overpass).   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 1 July 2005 20:31 (UTC)
 * Keep. Railway stations directly affect the daily lives of thousands of people. That should be enough.--Pharos 1 July 2005 22:24 (UTC)
 * Keep. Correct article about a valid subject, but it could be improved. I'm not interested in Pokemon or greek mythology, but we can't delete all articles we don't find interesting can we? RustyCale 1 July 2005 22:43 (UTC)
 * Keep valid article of interest to some people even if they are trainspotters as P Ingerson dismisses them as. As a so-called completionist, I think that it is good that Wikipedia is becoming a comprehensive reference work as was initially intended. The concept that P Ingerson would delete what he describes as obscure kings and queens is deletionism taken to the nth degree and would be a ludicrous policy for any work aspiring to be an encyclopedia. Either we want to be a thorough reference work or we don't - if we don't then I will find other things to do with my time. As for RickK, his leaving had nothing to do with votes for deletion but was a dummy spit after he was blocked for 24 hours for breaking the 3-revert rule. Capitalistroadster 1 July 2005 23:48 (UTC)
 * Comment: That's nonsense! To be the best, most notable encyclopaedia, we should only have articles on the best, most notable subjects.  Otherwise what's the point?  Just because the Britannica people were stupid enough to include articles on every country, every king, etc. in their Encyclopædia, that's no excuse for us to follow their mistakes.  Do we want Wikipedia to be better than Britannica or not?    &mdash; P Ingerson (talk) 4 July 2005 10:21 (UTC)
 * Keep We keep all articles on train stations. That debate is over. CalJW 2 July 2005 20:02 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes, but imagine how much better Wikipedia would be if we kept articles on only the most notable railway stations, only the most notable schools, only the most notable Star Trek episodes, only the most notable countries, only the most notable ways of putting on socks, etc. The debate should never have been closed.     &mdash; P Ingerson (talk) 4 July 2005 10:21 (UTC)
 * Deleting the articles about Mauritius, Vanuatu, Finland, and San Marino because they are not the most notable countries would definitely not make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Sjakkalle (Check!)  4 July 2005 15:05 (UTC)
 * Keep --SPUI (talk) 3 July 2005 02:45 (UTC)
 * Keep. "I've recently used this railyway station" seems an odd reason to delete an article.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 3 July 2005 14:12 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've got nothing against railway stations in general, even the ones that I've used. For example, I'm proud to have contributed to the article on Gipsy Hill railway station, which is notable because of its historic architecture, including the LB&SCR's coat of arms set into the walls.  That's a notable station, so it should stay.  But I believe Silver Street station is not notable.  Now, if anyone can rewrite the article to demonstrate notability, then I'll happily admit that I was wrong and change my vote to Keep.  Just one tiny, little sign to show that Silver Street is more notable than an average station, that's all it would take.  And so far, no-one's managed that.     &mdash; P Ingerson (talk) 4 July 2005 11:44 (UTC)
 * Isn't it an unreasonable demand, though? You don't think it's enough that it's a railway station, you're asking for it to be more notable than "the average railway station". Well I have no idea whether it is more or less notable than that, but recall the case of William IV above.  Participated in a constitutional crisis, prorogued Parliament in the middle of a debate, appointed a Tory Prime Minister against the wishes of a Whig Parliament, and the last monarch to exercise that prerogative.  So your notability criterion is either extremely high or here we have demonstrable that fact that something that doesn't appear notable may later be shown to be notable. Notability isn't something to take that seriously.  It's just a good rule of thumb that enables us to delete articles about bus drivers and the like. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 4 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)
 * Keep. -- Necrothesp 4 July 2005 19:05 (UTC)
 * Comment:, P Ingerson, I can almost (but not quite) follow you're argument on railway stations but saying that every Country schouldn't have an article? That's beyond the realms of imagination and reason. Are we making an encyclopedia here or not. I'm going to leave this conversation now before I overheat. --Celestianpower 4 July 2005 19:37 (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.