Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen Street (TTC)

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 Delete per consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Street (TTC)

Queen Street (TTC) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable location in an article that lacks references and sources

• Delete. This is the tip of an iceberg. If you look at the category links for Toronto LRTs there is some conflation (if not confusion). There are two subway lines, one of which has a Queen [Street] Station (since 1953). There is a LRT line out in the east end (Scarborough). The Spadina line is only a street car line on a dedicated right-of-way down the middle of the street. No speicial vehicles are used -- they are the same vehicles that run on half-a-dozen other streets (without dedicated rights-of-way). And there is certainly no "station" at Spadina and Queen, just little open shelters for lined up passengers (who pay their fair in the streetcar and not in an fixed "station"). ###### There are probably twenty or so street-car "stops" that should be deleted. And since a new dedicated right-of-way is now being built on St. Clair Ave (west), we would also be forced to add another 50 or so non-existent "stations"(i.e., street-car stops) to Wikipedia. ##### If we delete this, then I would volunteer to clean out the rest of the stops and leave the real stations.Ron B. Thomson (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The TTC (Toronto Transit Commission) itself does NOT show any stations along the Spadina street-car line, only real subway/LRT stations on the real subway/LRT lines. We should not be raising street-corners to the status of "stations". Ron B. Thomson (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -
  WP:CONSENSUS has long since found that rail stations/stops such as this are notable wherever they may happen to be in the world, and this one being in the center of a major Toronto business/retail district is particularly notable. Many of these articles that the above user is advocating deleting have been in existence for years with zero interest/consensus in deleting them. The above user's comments of not liking light rail stations/stops in general and his intent to delete all of them is just that, an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. --Oakshade (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC) (striking the last comment as it seems this was unfair--Oakshade (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC))[reply
  ]

• Comment - sadly, cosensus on railroad stop does not apply here. As strictly speaking. This is a STREETCAR Stop. (A guy form Toronto) SYSS Mouse (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• My comments (as a Torontonian) is that these are NOT stations in any common meaning of the word. They are street-car stops with no real ediface being built. It's not that I don't like it, it just that there is no substance to the article. One can describe the important sights around any interesection of any two streets, but that has nothing to do with the bus or tram service to that intersection. This is not logical. #### There are light-rail stations on the Scarborough LRT, and perhaps they need descriptions, but not these. Most of these could be fitted into a description of "Toronto China Town" and "Toronto Harbour Front". Coming at the content by means of a street-car stop is not the way to organize valuable information (that is my personal opinion). There are far more logical ways in which users would search for the information, and that is why we need to organize it that way. I stand by my comment that these and others need to be deleted so that we can concentrate on real stations.Ron B. Thomson (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the article about the line. To me, this isn't about how there may be
  reliable sources that can be said about this subject. In this case, I see nothing that can be said that isn't already in the article about the line. Erechtheus (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Every public transit project, whether it be stops, subway stations or lines, are verifiable as government records, budgets, etc. are required by law. --Oakshade (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Then they should be verified. Until they are, they're not very useful. Really, what of any use do we get out of this article that we wouldn't get from a redirect to the line? If there were records and budgets linked, the purpose for a separate article would be obvious. Erechtheus (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Like the other residents of Toronto, I don't consider that particular stop to be any more noteworthy than any of the thousands of others. Tourists do not stop to gaze in awe. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a streetcar stop without any reliable sources. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to
  510 Spadina and 509 Harbourfront (TTC) Streetcar lines are notable enough for Wikipedia, certainly. But individual stops along the line, absolutely not. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Street-car or other public transport "stops" can be placed anywhere, and are thus different in essence to "stations" which are always significant physical constructions. Therefore I agree that individual "stops" do not merit an article, and I'm happy to go along with the existing consensus that "stations" are inherently notable. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MightyWarrior. GreenJoe 21:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -Rail systems have a reasonable desgree of permanence due to the fixed infrastructure, whereas bus routes do not, even if they have a dedicated carriageway. Accordingly railway (and subway) stations are notable. Bus stops for road vehicles are not. I do not know enough of the system at issue here to say more. If retained "TTC" in title and "LRT" in text should be expanded. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : WARNING Voting delete may create an evil precedent which I do not wish to see. This example would support the deletion of at least 56 articles from Category:OC Transpo. I wish to see those article remain here on Wikipedia. However, again, if this article is deleted, I fear it will create a nasty model which should never be utilized as a precendent. I will be watching the turnout of this debate and expect a comment on this issue. Furthermore, if this is not addressed I will assume that the OC Transpo Articles, which are similar, should also be nominated for deletion or that this entire process should be appealed. --CyclePat (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OC Transpo has a dedicated bus road with permanent brick-and-mortar stations; this is completely different than a streetcar stop. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And LRT isn't considered permenant with it's rails? Isn't a bus stop even less permenant than LRT and how do we evaluate this? Take for example Jean-d'arc station which only has a little shelter.[1] Though it's only a shelter I believe it serves most of the people from Orleans? Should that article be delete to? There is no real infrastructure, and if the city wanted to they could probably move the stop tomorow without any real technical problems. b.t.w.: Isn't there a subway station that hooks up to this route? --CyclePat (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The stop is just a stop; rail or no rail. You may have a point about Jeanne d'Arc but a station is being built there in 2009. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A subway stop at Queen and Spadina? No. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Still Delete. We need to figure out what level of permanence and notability is involved in this type of transport. The Ottawa system (the
  510 Spadina and 509 Harbourfront (TTC)
  page clearly shows in the picture the standard street-car vehicles used in Toronto as well as the open shelters for passengers. While the introduction calls it an "LRT", the text very quickly agrees that they are just street cars.

I would draw the line below true LRT systems but above street cars lines. While it would be reasonable to keep the

510 Spadina and 509 Harbourfront (TTC) page, the sub-pages on each stop are what need to be deleted. Again several names of these "stops" are the same as the names of genuine stations on the Yonge Street subway (College, Dundas, Queen, King) and this leads to confusion. (When the system extended its subway parallel to the Yonge street line, new names where found for stations where the line crossed these main streets (Queen's Park, St. Patrick, Osgoode, St. Andrew).) Equipment should be listed with the TTC = Toronto Transit Commission; special routes could be preserved; but street car stops (about 30 are involved) on those routes should be deleted. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Merge: (2nd comment) Sounds like a

WP:CFORK problem to me and not a deletion issue. In fact if we go back to my question and compared OC Transpo vs LRT here is a link to a google map of Queen and Spadina and here is Jean d'Arc and HWY 174.? And to be honest, I'm from Ottawa and I've heard of Queen and Spadina... was it a murder? Traffic report from Global News? I don't remember but it's notable. Work it out with the other article on Merge if need be. --CyclePat (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

* We have surface transit routes, on dedicated rights-of-way, which uses normal street cars/trams, and which take on and let off passengers at major cross-streets at which there are open-sided shelters.

* This is distinct from Light Rail Transit systems both in terms of vehicles used and the lack of real “stations”.

* Question: do we distinguish between types of lines (is there a hierarchy of types of lines), as between Light Rail Transit and street-car lines?

* Question: do we distinguish between types of equipment?

* Question: do we distinguish between types of stops – permanent stations, open-air stops, high traffic volume stops, stops with additional non-station infrastructures, famous (or infamous) stops?

* Question: If non-station stops are to be featured, should they simply be included in the description of the line itself, with no separate page-per-stop? (Stops are merged into descriptions of special lines.)

* Question: Does it really matter that there are 10 to 30 almost-empty pages for each line?

* Question: How are we really going to decide on this??? Ron B. Thomson (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Another street car stop on the same line has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/College Street (TTC). Here we go again.Ron B. Thomson (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge As I understand, there are no notable structures or pavilions. These are simply streetcar stops at or near city corners. They do not merit individual articles but can be listed in articles on the streetcar lines, if desired.
  talk) 01:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge The individual stops on the
  Scarborough RT. Johnny Au (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete There's nothing notable about a streetcar stop - it's just a plexiglass shelter with a back wall and a roof to keep the rain off you. Even a photograph of one would be better placed in the 509/510 article. GTD Aquitaine (talk) 07:49, 10 May 2008 (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.