Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shepherd Avenue (IND Fulton Street Line)

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 --Akhilleus (talk) 04:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shepherd Avenue (IND Fulton Street Line)[edit]

I don’t understand what purpose this article serves. There is no assertion of this particular subway station being notable. Delete. --Bryson 21:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have so far maintained the principle that every subway station is notable, because they are permanent structures and influence the neighborhood, and there is usually material to be found about inclusion in route changes and so on. As a beginner, I challenged this once or twice until I realised that the advantage of not having to debate each one individually was a fair exchange for keeping them all. "Permanent buildings" is a good simple criterion. Longer I'm here, the more groups of things we can keep out of AfD, the better. We have difficult problems to solve and major disagreements about policy, and let's not sweat the small stuff. DGG 23:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reliable sources, anybody? Also, how could this ever be more than a stub? Trying to squeeze an encylopedia article out of every "permanent structure" in the world is an exercise in total futility. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is not the solution. It might or might not make sense to merge, but the information - and a page, whether article or redirect - would stay. A while ago, I decided to test the theory that these articles will be "permanent stubs" with Grand Army Plaza (IRT Eastern Parkway Line) (chosen because there was a dispute over the name, not because it's a particularly major station). I was surprised at how much I was able to find. However, I just took a quick look for this one, and found almost nothing. Local stations on the IND Fulton Street Line might be a good target for merging if nothing more can be found. --NE2 02:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't even know why this article is even going through an AFD. I think it should be closed immediately, but I guarantee it will close as to keep. –Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 02:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe because it's not necessarily a good idea to have an article with no little information. --NE2 02:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a stub, or should be marked as one at least. Info will be added over time, however. –Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 03:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What information? I can't find anything else to add, but you might have access to resources that I don't. --NE2 03:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Every other station in the system (there are >400 of them) has an article. As noted above, this one happens to be a stub, but they were nearly all stubs at one point, and over time they do grow into something more substantial. Marc Shepherd 02:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it should be deleted, but I don't know what more can be added here. --NE2 02:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there's an alternative proposal, the project talk page is a good place to decide. I am quite certain that when there are ~400 individual station articles, you don't just delete one. Any such decision should be part of a holistic plan for the whole series of articles. Marc Shepherd 03:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Something like this should not be "pecked at" one by one. --NE2 03:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's very important to NYCS project. It should have issued a stub. -- BWCNY 02:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Local stations on the IND Fulton Street Line per NE2. It exists, but so does the mailbox at the corner and the utility pole behind the house, and both are arguably as permanent as this subway station. If sufficient sources are ever found to create more than a directory listing/stub, then a stand-alone article coould be re-created. For now, it fails WP:A and WP:N. Edison 04:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Organizationally, it's better to have an occasional stub article than have articles for every subway stop but one. WP:SENSE says we keep it. Capmango 04:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Surprising at it may be to some, these stubs do grow into articles, given time. —CComMack (t–c) 12:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subway stations are notable and this one is very important in NYC subway system. --Oakshade 07:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade and others. 192.88.171.35 02:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on what Marc Shepherd said in the above comment. Even if this station ought to be deleted based on AfD criteria (and there's enough debate to indicate this is not an obvious thing), we should ignore the rules here. It would be sensible and in Wikipedia's spirit of consensus to suggest and develop a uniform plan for all stations on the project page as opposed to deleting some articles here and there. Slic e NYC (Talk) 00:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subway stations. They are important nodes in public transportation, and have some history of their own (opening date for example). NYCsubway entry for this station here although it is a bit sparse. Keeping stations as separate articles is much cleaner than trying to merge them... merging subway stations on the same line seems like a great idea until subway stations on multiple lines throws sand into the machinery. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With this particular station, and other local stations on the line, it's possible that all we can say is the location, the opening date, the configuration, and the color of tiles. I definitely agree that any transfer stations should be separate, and in fact the majority should remain separate. But some of the outer stations are "cookie-cutter" copies of each other with no real differences. --NE2 11:30, 28 June 2007 (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.