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.
Article was deleted a long time ago as a then-planned tram stop without notability. It has been recreated a few years later as a planned tram top without notability. Of the three sources in the article, the first one (Lidland Metro) doesn't mntion Brindleyplace, the sond one (Railnews) doesn't mention Brindleyplace, and the third is a primary source which mentions Brindley Place (with space) a few times. No evidence of any notability for this proposed tram stop could be found.
Fram (
talk)
12:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Together with this article, I also nominate the other articles on planned tram stops on this line, which all have the same lack of notability.
Fram (
talk)
12:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. The notability of tram stops has already been established. So why should future tram stops be different. The other reasons given are spurious.
G-13114 (
talk)
12:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
This tram stop (the first nominated article) has already been deleted through AFD, so your argument seems to be incorrect. But feel free to link to a page showing a global consensus that tram stops are notable. I checked
WP:N and the linked notability guidelines, and none seem to support your claim though.
Fram (
talk)
13:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
The issue of deleting Midland Metro tram stops has come up before, and there has never been any consensus for it see
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Paul's tram stop for example. This article was deleted before it was confirmed that it would be built. It has been confirmed now, so the situation is different now. If these are deleted now, then they will just be recreated again in a few years when they have opened, so there is no logical reason to delete them.
G-13114 (
talk)
13:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Existing tram stops are hardly the same as planned tram stops, and a "no consensus" debate is no evidence at all that "the notability of tram stops has already been established" as you claimed. Perhaps these ones will be built, perhaps not, a lot can happen between now and then (many "confirmed" things never happen in the end). There is no logical reason to have these articles already, and opposing deletion because they will be recreated in a few years time anyway is a nice example of what
WP:CRYSTAL is all about.
Fram (
talk)
13:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment, Again, merging them would make no sense, as they would just have to be recreated again in a few years time. And where exactly are you proposing that they be merged?
G-13114 (
talk)
17:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Yes but for what purpose? They will only be recreated in a few years time. What's the point in deleting them now? The New Street to Centenary Square extension is pretty much guaranteed now. The rest has funding committed.
G-13114 (
talk)
07:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Define "significant". In this case it proves that they exist, or will do. Or do you consider that they would only become notable when opened? A quick internet search provides other sources as well - e.g.
[1].
Optimist on the run (
talk)
13:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)reply
No. Roads exist, can be found on maps, but (in general) are not notable. Things become notable by meeting the requirements from the notability guideline, not by simply existing (with very few exceptions, like geographical features). The source you give, Centro, is obviously not an independent source, a secondary source about these stops, but the authority overseeing (funding, organizing, I haven't checked their exact role) these tram lines. Looking at e.g. the situation in Belgium (where I am from), very few tram stops are notable (many are nothing more than simple bus stops, but along a tram line instead of along a road; only the underground stations are generally considered notable). Of course, more elaborate ones or otherwise exceptional ones may be notable, but simply existing (and of course even less simply being planned) is far from enough to be notable.
Fram (
talk)
13:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Obviously that source isn't bad and should be used in such articles: however, we are not dealing with
WP:V here, but with
WP:N: primary sources do not establish or support any notability, only independent secondary sources can do this.
Fram (
talk)
06:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Redirect all. We do not need an article for every run-of-the-mill tram stop, much less non-existant ones. Fails WP:N.
Charles (
talk)
15:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge and Redirect per
Northamerica1000's suggestion above makes sense. I agree that extant tram stops should likely be considered notable in line with our purpose as a gazetteer, but the same certainly cannot be said for tram stops that do not exist (and have not existed). Still, it's sensible to include in a parent article. — Rhododendritestalk \\
13:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)reply
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.