Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elmhurst (Metra)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Elmhurst (Metra)

Elmhurst (Metra) (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Not notable: the article is about a small commuter train station in a suburb of a city, just one of hundreds of thousands of such stations in the world. TheSeven 07:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• So, why pick this one for AfD out of like a kajillion commuter railway station articles? Anyway, there's enough room in Union Pacific/West Line to merge the individual stations except for any particularly notable ones (eg: Ogilvie Transportation Center) into a list or table. Weak keep as there's already plenty of precedent for individual stations on notable rail lines having their own articles, although I still think a list merge wouldn't be a bad idea. Also, I have my doubts about the good-faith of this nom since it was apparently selected at random, perhaps to make a point? Tubezone 08:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Elmhurst or Union Pacific/West Line SkierRMH 08:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep *ahem* Jordanhill railway station *ahem*. Looks like the the Pokémon test applies here. MER-C 08:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree, though Jordanhill does have some peculiar notability to go with it (Wikipedia's millionth article). Keep for sure. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 20:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as part of a maintained and categorized system of station articles for a notable commuter rail system. Ample precedent. --Dhartung | Talk 09:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I assume that the nominator did not know that there's a good reason while railway and commuter rail stations tend not to wind up on AfD. Rail station articles are largely accepted, and any campaign to delete them would likely cause conflict and division.-- danntm ^T _C 13:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Precedent is not necessarily binding, notability should be examined individually. This particular one does not seem to establish it even if others might. Certainly we don't need an individual article on every minor rail route in existence. "Someone might get irritated" is not a valid keep reason. Seraphimblade 14:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per WP:AFDP, all rail stations are notable. There's no reason for this one to be singled out. --Oakshade 19:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Is Wikipedia supposed to have an article about every commuter train station in the world? If not, then—since there is nothing else notable about this one—I think it should be deleted. If Wikipedia is supposed to, then that would be hundreds of thousands of articles. (Note: I am the nominator).  TheSeven 23:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Actually, there are thousands of train station articles, and there's a lengthy discussion going on User:Mangoe/Wikipedia is not a timetable about that very subject, the large number of station articles and their maintainability. IMHO, that's where this discussion should be headed, rather than arguing about the notability of stations on an AfD for one station. Still, at this time, precedent should decide the issue. Are you trying to make some kind of point? ;-) Tubezone 23:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• • CommentThe guideline WP:AFDP cited above says "Subway and railway stations are allowed, but notability is currently under discussion [1]" This means there is no inherent right to maintain an article for each of the thousands or millions of them in the world for no apparent purpose. Edison 23:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment / Reply - I knew someone would say that. I'm actually part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Stations where we are trying to create an informative comprehensive collection of articles of stations from around the world. All of us don't simply want stations listed, but to have encyclopedic information of each station like its history and/or importance, for instances. Yes, just like Tubezone said above (better than I have, actually), there is a current ernest discussion at User talk:Mangoe/Wikipedia is not a timetable about the standards of station inclusion, and even if there should by any standards. But as it stands now there's no reason to single out this station for AfD against precedent (or for WP:DISRUPT) as no official WP outcome of that discussion has been reached. --Oakshade 23:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bus stops and train stations are not inherently notable unless multiple independent news stories or other indices of notability are provided which talk about the station in a nontrivial way. No function is served by copying everything from every directory in the world into a Wikipedia article which is soon out of date. A mention of the station could be made in an article about the transit system, with a link to their website for schedules and travel times. Edison 23:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That is your POV and not official WP policy or guideline (except for the bus stops bit - different subject) and you are free and encouraged to be part of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stations and/or User talk:Mangoe/Wikipedia is not a timetable regarding the inherent notability of train stations. --Oakshade 00:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply: I think that an important thing to note is that bus stops almost always get deleted at AfD, while train stations don't. Further, I agree that dumping the timetable into a Wikipedia article is unwise, to say the least. However, there can be much more to train stations then simply what time the trains come, such as there history, architecture, etc.-- danntm ^T _C 01:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep As precedent, at least until policy overrides this. Robovski 00:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)