Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tunney's Pasture Station (OC Transpo)


 * 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. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy  ( talk ) 00:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Tunney&

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Just an article about a bus stop. Per the common outcomes, bus stops are not notable. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is a little deceiving to call it just "a bus stop". It is a physical station on the Ottawa Rapid Transit transitway and Articles for deletion/Common outcomes specifically notes that this line is notable and that articles on stations are "questionable". Double Blue  (Talk) 23:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Most of the stations on the Transitway are rather more than mere "bus stops": they are major pieces of infrastructure that make stations on several rail systems look puny.  Tunney's Pasture is one of the largest Transitway stations, so this should definitely stay.  --RFBailey (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep per common outcomes' specific mention of Ottawa's Transitway system. Tunney's also functions as a notable bus transfer hub, comparable to subway or LRT stations. Dl2000 (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Tunney's transit station is not "just a bus stop". Although it's not indicated in the article, the station is a major destination and departure zone for serveral thousand commuting public servants who work in the Tunney's Pasture government campus. Second, the station also serves as hub for other OC Transpo bus routes that do not travel on the transitway, including a few busses from the Gatineau (Quebec) bus company the Société de transport de l'Outaouais. Rather than delete it, I suggest someone improve the quality of the article.Demetri1968 (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Ottawa Transit system is mentioned as a specific example on the common outcomes link above of transit stations which are valid for articles.  Additionally, if this is deleted, the other 20-30 related articles about the other major transit stops on the system would also have to be nominated and deleted.Vulcan&#39;s Forge (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. As per comments above.  The nominator appears to have misconstrued common outcomes, as it provides that articles on hubs in major cities can be kept.  I note that this same editor also proposed the deletion of Kent Station (OC Station) on the basis of the same "just a bus stop" rationale just under three years ago (consensus was to keep)-- it would appear that circumstances and consensus have not changed since then.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Kent "station" is just a bus stop; Tunney's Pasture certainly isn't. So if Kent can stay, then this definitely should.  --RFBailey (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not too sure that there is that much of a difference between the two of them -- the fact that Tunney's Pasture has more infrastructure than Kent is more a factor of the Transitway being below-grade in that location than anything else. It's irrelevant, however, because both are transit hubs in a major city, and thus are both likely to kept as articles as per common outcomes.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The precedent spelled out at WP:OUTCOMES is actually for dedicated bus rapid transit lines such as the Transitway to be treated as more notable than conventional bus routes along regular streets, because they serve a function more akin to that of a commuter rail or subway line. And the reality is that while we do regularly delete plain old "shelter and pole on the side of the road" bus stations, we do tend to keep stations on major dedicated transit lines. The precedent as written is actually kind of fuzzy and ambiguous — the line about individual stations being questionable is basically in conflict with the line about certain hubs in major cities. Although this could certainly use a few stronger sources (media coverage of the fire, perhaps?), I'm going to go with the keep side here — but I'm also going to post to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes to request a revised version of the precedent. Bearcat (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2008 (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.