Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell Carhouse

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 04:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Carhouse

[edit]
Russell Carhouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a carhouse, a garage, operated by Toronto's public transportation system. Such things have no inherent notability, for good reason--they are highly utilitarian with little cultural or other value. Sourcing in the article, and sources on the internet, are primary, directory-style, or, at best, local and fairly trivial mentions. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD is one of three very similar ones. See the other two, out of:
--doncram 22:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Geo Swan (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Geo Swan (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Class455fan1 (talk) 11:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep This article meets WP:GNG because at this time there are at least 13 sources listed in the article which contain significant coverage over several different source types which are WP:RS. Zpeopleheart (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC) - Per WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There are sources here. If sources deemed inadequate for some reason, then "Merge" is obviously the better alternative than "Delete". (Copying my vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilson Yard): 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.
Further, it is an editing decision at Toronto Transit Commission facilities about when its material can/should be split out, so if this is deleted then I think it can be recreated at any time by editors there. I think this should have been a discussion at Talk:Toronto Transit Commission facilities instead of at AFD. --doncram 22:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. (1) It is a heritage structure. (2)Toronto Life identified it as one of the four most popular venues during the annual Doors Open Toronto. (3) It is an important part of the infrastructure that keeps Toronto running.

    I was going to write that this is an "obvious" keep, except I realized that those who have asserted non-notability are also tacitly making claims of obviousness. So, clearly it isn't obvious to them.

    What they are failing to recognize is that important infrastructure, like this carhouse, if of interest to others -- including the writers who have written about the carhouses. Sorry, but the delete arguments, the ignoring of the reliable references, is a classic instance of one of the arguments in the essay WP:Arguments to avoid -- namely, "I don't like it". Geo Swan (talk) 06:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trying to see what similar articles might exist for major cities and in NYC, I see that only Coney Island Yard Electric Motor Repair Shop has its own article, because it's a nationally designated historic site. Everything else is grouped in List of New York City Subway yards and I can't find any record of any of those yards ever having had their own articles. That said, Category:Railway workshops does contain some articles of similar notability or lack of -- both of course that's an OTHERSTUFF argument... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Major permanent transit infrastructure has always been considered notable, though relatively fe people have written on the behind-the-scenes parts of it. I'm glad someone is beginning to at least work on them. The individual sections in the List of NYC yards could and should be expanded into full articles. This is major enough, and there are sources. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is large facility not just "garage". Important history for this too. Martin Morin (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As DGG says, we have consistently, and appropriately, treated major transportation infrastructure as notable. This one also has evidence of particular historical notability. The article is properly sourced and the level of detail already present here militates against merging to a more general article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Same case as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eglinton LRT Carhouse: Unremarkable, routine piece of transport infrastructure, there's thousands of those and this one has nothing interesting to say about it, it's a local building and local people do local things in it, such as drive streetcars or have festivals. It's not "major infrastructure". The Gotthard Base Tunnel is major infrastructure. This here is a garage. Sources treat the topic superficially, or are of a local nature.  Sandstein  22:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Aren't two of our core policies WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability? As per GNG, when reliable sources publish verifiable, authoritative coverage of a topic, isn't it notable, by definition?
  2. Your "merely local" concern, why shouldn't the rest of us see this as just another way of rephrasing the most commonly uttered WP:Arguments to avoid -- "I don't like it". If we were to apply your "merely local" rule to all articles, what percentage of them would remain? Fifty percent? Ten percent? Why cover Manchester United, when we could merely cover every summer and winter Olympics? Are you aware of any wiki policy, or wiki guideline, that would bar covering a topic, that had good references, because someone argued the topic was "merely local"?
  3. With regard to the Gotthard Tunnel -- which I had to look up, because, while it might be local to you in Europe, I'd forgotten about it. Are you sure you aren't setting the bar too high? For other North Americans, the recently completed Gotthard Tunnel is a record-setting railway tunnel under the Alps, the longest in the world. It cost over $10 billion USD -- about the same cost as Boston's Big Dig. I suggest that the Gotthard Tunnel, the Big Dig and the recently completed upgrade to the Panama Canal, are like the Napoleon, the Admiral Nelson, the Duke of Wellington of infrastructure projects. But we didn't stop at just covering Napoleon, Nelson, Wellington. We will cover the officers who commanded their divisions, and brigades -- when there are good reliable sources to flesh the articles on those lesser generals out. Similarly, the lesser generals who didn't serve directly under Napoleon, Nelson, Wellington? We will cover them, too, when good, reliable sources exist.
  4. To your comment that these two articles cover "routine piece of transport infrastructure, there's thousands of those", I'd say: "Thousands? Then let's get cracking!"

    You went on and added: "this one has nothing interesting to say about it", surely, after closing AFD for almost a decade, you must recognize that this phrase you used is merely rewording WP:IDONTLIKEIT?

    Personally, I think a lot of new age stuff, like homeopathy, is dangerous nonsense. But, no matter how much I personally dislike the topic, I would defend anyone who tried to cover homeopathy, neutrally, and while citing good, reliable references. When I am willing to defend coverage of topics I hate, when it does comply with policy, how should I react when it seems your main argument boils down to finding the topic of these articles simply uninteresting? Geo Swan (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't dislike this building or this topic. I've written one or two railway or building articles myself. But other than in exceptional cases, not apparently present here, this type of infrastructure is too commonplace to be the subject of any other than superficial coverage, and therefore unfit for an article.  Sandstein  17:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Congratulation! These look like fine articles -- today, particularly the one on the Stadler KISS commuter railway and the Zytglogge medieval guard tower.

      Let's look more closely at the Stadler KISS commuter railway, OK? Here is your first draft. Three references; two paragraphs; three sentences. One of those references is to an internal document -- does not establish notability.

      But I am supporting your younger self! Deletion is supposed to be based on the notability of the article's topic. A new commuter rail service, where the transit agency has committed to purchase 50 train-sets?

      This was a clearly notable topic.

      This was a clearly notable topic, even though the "project wasn't even complete yet!" as the other people voicing delete opinions claimed.

      This was a clearly notable topic, even though it was only three sentences long, even though it only cited two independent references.

      Can I call on the 2008 Sandstein to return? Geo Swan (talk) 00:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you genuinely think I personally attacked you, or someone else, please leave me a heads-up on my talk page. Please be specific. If you do so, and I agree with you, I'll do what I can to remedy that. But substantive, policy-based discussion is not a personal attack. Geo Swan (talk) 21:55, 4 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Russell_Carhouse&oldid=1254358003"