Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Paul's tram stop (3rd nomination)


 * 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 Keep. IrishGuy talk 20:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

St Paul's tram stop

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information  and Wikipedia is not a travel guide

May I just say that I have only included pure tram stops, and not stops such as West Bromwich Central tram stop and Wednesbury Great Western Street tram stop (please see their respective talk pages which have previously been train stations (if indeed they have). Tram stops are not not notable than bus stops, and precident has been set with Nottingham Express Transit losing it's individual stop articles (the main article now looks very neat though) and Supertram and Metrolink have no individual stop articles - and Manchester's Metrolink stops are more like Midland Metro's, so in my opinion, neither need individual articles.  They are unexpandable, offer no information, and conflict with Wikipedia is not a travel guide. So, there are my reasons, argue away!   L.J.Skinner wot 14:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Midland Metro stops are more akin to railway stations than bus stops. Andy Mabbett 13:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Andy Mabbett and all previous AfDs. Computerjoe 's talk 13:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Since it is a pretty big operation to move a tram line, tram stops are a far more permanent fixture than bus stops, and closer to subway stations in terms of encyclopedic validity. I agree with Andy and Joe. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Tram stops are npotable, as determined by previous afd debates. This has been debated before on several occasions. Nothing's changed. – Tivedshambo (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Previous afd's should not need to determine the outcome of this. These pages have still not expanded since them, which only shows they cannot be expanded without violating wikipedia is not a travel guide (believe me, I tried to expand Supertram articles myself).  So you are indeed correct - nothing's changed, nor will it ever, delete.    L.J.Skinner wot 15:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Andy Mabbett plus, the Midland Metro is more of a light rail system than a tram network. - Erebus555 16:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * comment template:Britishmetros would disagree with you. It is just a tram, using old heavy-rail infrastructure.   L.J.Skinner wot 15:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Most are just 2 sentence stubs with no references. Even the first one lacks reliable independent references satisfying Edison 20:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge all to Midland Metro. Wikipedia is not a directory, of tram stops or anything else. Where are the multiple non-trivial secondary sources of whihc these tram stops have each been primary subject?  Surely a chapter on each in Trams Of The West Midlands?  Nope.  Not even books on trams devote more than a paragraph to individual stops, in my experience.  These are not akin to railway stations, not even akin to halts on the old pre-grouping lines, they are much more like bus stops. Guy (Help!) 20:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - We've been through these articles AfDs twice before. Light rail stops are notable and consensus has demonstrated that. --Oakshade 21:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment No it hasn't. Each previous AfD has resulted in no consensus to delete, which is not the same as consensus to keep  L.J.Skinner wot 15:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Tram, trolley, light-rail stops are noteworthy, they serve neighborhoods and can be expanded. Fg2 00:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not without violating wikipeda is not a travel guide and wikipedia is not a directory, and not with adding sources.  L.J.Skinner wot 15:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all and combine into a list. Yes, we have considered them before, but in view of what I hope are increasing standards we should think again. I would support these articles if there were anything to be said. But they all are composed of only the following pieces of information: where they are, when they were built, what line they are on, and the stations that come before and after. This is perfect material for an article about the line, with the stations listed. DGG 02:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "they all are composed of only the following pieces of information [...]" - that's patently untrue. Andy Mabbett 11:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Handsworth Booth Street tram stop has some good info, for example. Neier 05:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - This nomination seems even more inclined towards keep than the previous afd attempts. Can we use this to reach a consensus, for this and other similar light railway systems, that any currently open Metro or other light rail stop, consisting of a permanent structure, is equivalent to a heavy rail station, and just as notable? – Tivedshambo (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Consensus has repeatedly stated that railway stations are inherently notable.  RFerreira 08:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * These are not railway stations.  L.J.Skinner wot 15:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Time to close this; and put it out of its misery? Andy Mabbett 09:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * delete as nominator. These have not and will not be expanded (at least not without violating wikipedia is not a directory).  They are the same as individual tram-stop articles on Supertram and Nottingham Express Transit which were deleted.  There has never been consensus to keep, only no consensus to delete.  I have no problem keeping the stops that were once rail stations, and expanding them, but these only say "x is a tram stop in y on the Midland Metro".   L.J.Skinner wot 15:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "These [...] will not be expanded" When you've finished with your crystal ball, can I borrow it? Andy Mabbett 20:18, 4 April 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.