Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilson Yard


 * 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-admin closure) Dane2007 (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Wilson Yard

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD removed by in a typically unexplained, time-wasting move. This building is not notable. It's a location where the Toronto transit system keeps cars and buses--there is nothing encyclopedic about it. I found one secondary mention of the building: something there was built in 2009--that's the level of non-notability we're looking at. Delete: fails the GNG miserably. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This AFD is one of three very similar ones. See the other two, out of:
 * Articles for deletion/Eglinton LRT Carhouse,
 * Articles for deletion/Russell Carhouse, and
 * Articles for deletion/Wilson Yard
 * -- do ncr  am  22:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep This is the largest facility of the Toronto Transit Commission and there are obviously better alternatives than deletion per our editing policy. Drmies seems to have been on a deletion spree and we notice that, for the similar cases before and after this, he used AfD rather than ProD.  Perhaps he punched the wrong button on Twinkle as ProD seems quite inappropriate in this case because the article has existed for over 10 years and been edited by numerous editors, who all seem to have considered the topic to be reasonable.  Notifying just the original IP account that started the page is quite inadequate as it would be quite improper for such a mature article about such a major facility to be silently removed without discussion. Andrew D. (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no reason assume PROD is not appropriate for such articles; I note that Andrew Davidson proposes not a single argument for keeping the article besides saying "it's the biggest they have", which is unproven and, in its own right, uninteresting. Instead we get a personal attack of some sort. Andrew: AfD doesn't go silently, nor does PROD--you're not the only person who looks at articles nominated for deletion. Drmies (talk) 12:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. A merge might be called for; AfD has generally held that railway lines (infrastructure) are notable, along with stations. Yards haven't come up very often. An yard is arguably more important than an individual station (and larger) but less visible. Mackensen (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * A transit yard does not get an automatic notability pass just because it exists; it must be the subject of reliable source coverage in media to earn a notability pass. But the only sourcing here is the TTC's own self-published website about itself, and the quality of RS coverage needed to salvage this just isn't out there. This can be mentioned in the appropriate places (e.g. Toronto Transit Commission), but nothing here satisfies the conditions needed to stand alone as an independent article topic in its own right. And just for the record, I live in Toronto and take the subway quite regularly — so this is not a case of me confusing notability or lack thereof with personal unfamiliarity with the topic. And consensus can change, as can the notability and sourcing rules that a topic has to meet, so the fact that the article has existed for ten years is not determinative — if the article isn't meeting, and can't be revised to meet, the notability and sourcing standards that pertain today, then the fact that this may have been considered acceptable by the horrifically loose standards of 2005 (which were tightened up over the past decade because they had to be) doesn't trump today's rules. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge (or Keep). It is legitimate material for larger article Toronto Transit Commission facilities, which has a short section about it.  It's not too long that most of it could not be merged back to the larger article's section, leaving a redirect behind and hence leaving the page's edit history, which can be revived if more coverage turns up.  However it is also okay that it is split out to a separate article, so that extra detail does not clog up the main article. There is not much to be gained by this AFD. -- do  ncr  am  21:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication of notability. At best, it can be merged with Toronto Transit Commission facilities. The Banner talk 22:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Major permanent transit infrastructure has always been considered notable, though relatively fe people have written on the behind-the-scenes parts of it. This is major enough, and there are sources.  DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There are sources? Where? Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - prominent transport facilities can be notable. There are articles on more than twenty rail depots in London, for instance. Seems to be a major facility, although more citations would be nice. Perhaps a book on the history of the TTC system would be a good source. Blythwood (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, more citations would be nice. But there aren't more citations out there to add, because media coverage of this is nonexistent. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. As DGG says, we have consistently, and appropriately, treated major transportation infrastructure as notable. Deletion of this encyclopedic content is not appropriate. Alternatively, a merge might be OK, adding some additional detail at Toronto Transit Commission facilities.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We treat major transportation infrastructure as notable if it's reliably sourced. We do not treat transportation infrastructure as notable if its owner's own self-published website about itself is the only source anybody can find. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The TTC's sources will be very reliable. We routinely have mundane infrastructure documented in this sort of way, e.g. Ontario Highway 27. Andrew D. (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources, for Wikipedia's purposes, are independent of the subject being covered. Primary sources can be used for some supplementary confirmation of facts after enough independent media coverage has been shown to get the topic over GNG, but primary sources cannot be an article's entire sourcing pool. Highway 27, frex, does cite other sources besides the MTO's own self-published content — it still needs more of that than it's got, but it already doesn't have zero of that the way this does. And no class of topic on Wikipedia, including transportation infrastructure, ever gets exempted from having to have some non-primary coverage in independent sources. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it's quite normal for sources to have some relationship with the topic. This is natural because the source must necessarily have an interest in the topic to be covering it.  So, for example, we have numerous article about professional sportsmen which are sourced to sources which are quite interested in and dependent upon these as their topic – see Cricinfo.  Andrew D. (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources which have a direct affiliation with the topic are acceptable for some supplementary confirmation of facts after fully independent sources have gotten the topic over WP:GNG. Directly affiliated primary sources cannot, however, carry a topic's basic eligibility to have an article. Bearcat (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete or selectively merge to Toronto Transit Commission or elsewhere. Unremarkable, routine piece of transport infrastructure, there's thousands of those and this one has nothing interesting to say about it. Sources are peripheral or not independent. What's next, articles about individual railway wagons?  Sandstein   22:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * routine is not an argument. Railroad stations are also a routine part of infrastructure, yet we have an article on each. Ditto for Nuclear power plants, and major dams. There are several orders of magnitude in importance between this an an ordinary railway wagon.  DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 2 August 2016 (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.