- 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. The arguments for deletion because the content is entirely unsourced original research is compelling in the light of WP:V and WP:NOR. There is consensus that the topic is potentially notable, so all are free to write an actual article about it. Sandstein 12:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Railway station layout
- Railway station layout ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As a railfan myself I feel a certain reluctance in this, but what we have here is pretty much a textbook case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Given the enormous numbers of stations constructed over the years, it is unsurprising that lots of them go beyond the classical terminal or through stations, and so what we get here is a long list of anything that someone or another found "interesting", and again, given the numbers, it's hardly surprising that the various expedients for odd cases got used more than once. But there's no system to it, and what system we see here didn't come from some authority; it's just what people made up on the spot. A (long) list of oddities is not an article on how stations are laid out. Mangoe ( talk) 12:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Addendum: It's instructive to learn that this article was created specifically to fork off a growing list of trivia from railroad station all the way back in 2004. Mangoe ( talk) 13:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:TNT, as the content here is worthless.
- Although if I had a moment, I might then begin it again from scratch. Andy Dingley ( talk) 13:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete This is an article we should have, but in a more descriptive rather than list form. Starting again seems like a good idea, especially as there are a number of pages linking to it. Rcsprinter123 (notify) 20:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete I would agree with the comments above that a worthwhile article could be developed on railway station layouts, but this just reads like a random list with no logic to it and as such is of very little use. Dunarc ( talk) 23:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: This article does have useful information. It also has a lot of unnecessary examples, and other useless stuff. I would edit out most or all of the examples, and the sections about station naming, longest platforms and largest stations, but keep the rest. I would also try to find some references for what remains. The de.wiki article de:Bahnhof has some references for its equivalents of the parts that I would keep (but those references are in German), and there are further possible references in Station building#References (an article I have been translating from pl.wiki) (but I don't have easy access to those references). If it is regarded as acceptable to use German language references as at least a stopgap, I will modify this article as I have suggested and add some German language references to it. Bahnfrend ( talk) 02:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. This is an encyclopedic subject, and indeed, some of the above votes in favor of deletion acknowledge that the subject itself is deserving of an article, just think the current article is not a good one. Deletion is not a substitute for cleanup. To delete instead of improving an article on a notable subject is contrary to the Wikipedia's ethos of steady, collaborative improvement that builds on previous work. It makes no sense to start over from scratch instead of on improving on what has already been written. — Lowellian ( reply) 08:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, but having said that, I can understand the delete argument completely... It needs work, if someone puts the work in, it is worth keeping. As it stands I understand the argument to delete JarrahTree 10:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- WP:TNT A discussion of the various types of railway stations, platform layouts, etc. is definitely encyclopedic. We have side platform, island platform, Spanish solution, balloon loop, etc. An article by this name should just briefly describe, include a {{ main}} tag, and maybe a couple examples for each type. There could also be a section on notable exceptions. But the current list of examples is too massive and too random to be useful. Some of the sections (platform numbering, joint/disjoint stations) are pure WP:SYNTH which should be removed. I could go on. – Train2104 ( t • c) 18:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Article requires improvement, not deletion. Remember, folks, AFD is not cleanup. And it's a notable topic, so the quality of the article is irrelevant. Smartyllama ( talk) 17:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
-
WP:SOFIXIT. If you can't actually turn it into a decent article, you don't actually have an argument for keeping this. Personally, I think that for the most part what needs to be said about layout can be said in a short section in the main article, but even so, if there is to be an article here, I'm for
WP:TNT.
Mangoe (
talk) 13:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Re: "If you can't actually turn it into a decent article, you don't actually have an argument for keeping this." That's not in Wikipedia rules at all, and it's an absurd argument, as it would mean that no one could ever vote keep on any AFD unless they were expert enough in the subject to improve it to a good article. Again, AFD is not cleanup. —
Lowellian (
reply) 13:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Nonsense:
WP:TNT would not exist if this were so, and your argument is exaggerated. If you aren't knowledgeable enough on the subject to be able to tell whether the article is bosh or not, even if that knowledge is acquired-on-the-spot, then you shouldn't be a participant in the discussion. The only improvement good enough for this article is to erase it and, if someone is up to the task, re-create it. My reasonably-informed opinion is that what is already said about station layouts in the main article is sufficient, and that this trivia list needs to go away entirely and not be merged back into the main article. People who are addressing the content of the article, thus far, have agreed with me, though some of them think a worthwhile article could be written instead. If someone manages to do so, I'm OK with that. But the argument that we have to keep the current crap around while we wait for someone to write a different article in its place is not policy and not a guideline.
Mangoe (
talk) 14:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- You're constructing a strawman in changing your argument to "if you aren't knowledgeable enough on the subject to be able to tell whether the article is bosh or not, even if that knowledge is acquired-on-the-spot, then you shouldn't be a participant in the discussion", since that is not what you were originally claiming at all, which was that one cannot be in favor of keeping the article unless one can personally improve it to a decent one. That is not policy and not a guideline. —
Lowellian (
reply) 21:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- The problem with "keep the current crap around" is that if someone does rewrite it properly, at some point they will delete that crap. And immediately afterwards, someone will restore it and they give them a {{ uw-v1}} template and a {{ welcome-idiot}} "welcome", just to rub in the point that pointlessly keeping totally worthless crap is the preservationist approach.
- This is crap. It can't bee "fixed".
Andy Dingley (
talk) 22:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- This is exactly why I keep going back to "sofixit" arguments. When the argument is that what we have is unsalvageable, the counter-argument is to salvage it; mere procedure and appeals to a poorly-named essay section will not cut it. AFD is, in the end, precisely about arguing for "clean-up". Mangoe ( talk) 11:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- You're constructing a strawman in changing your argument to "if you aren't knowledgeable enough on the subject to be able to tell whether the article is bosh or not, even if that knowledge is acquired-on-the-spot, then you shouldn't be a participant in the discussion", since that is not what you were originally claiming at all, which was that one cannot be in favor of keeping the article unless one can personally improve it to a decent one. That is not policy and not a guideline. —
Lowellian (
reply) 21:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Nonsense:
WP:TNT would not exist if this were so, and your argument is exaggerated. If you aren't knowledgeable enough on the subject to be able to tell whether the article is bosh or not, even if that knowledge is acquired-on-the-spot, then you shouldn't be a participant in the discussion. The only improvement good enough for this article is to erase it and, if someone is up to the task, re-create it. My reasonably-informed opinion is that what is already said about station layouts in the main article is sufficient, and that this trivia list needs to go away entirely and not be merged back into the main article. People who are addressing the content of the article, thus far, have agreed with me, though some of them think a worthwhile article could be written instead. If someone manages to do so, I'm OK with that. But the argument that we have to keep the current crap around while we wait for someone to write a different article in its place is not policy and not a guideline.
Mangoe (
talk) 14:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Re: "If you can't actually turn it into a decent article, you don't actually have an argument for keeping this." That's not in Wikipedia rules at all, and it's an absurd argument, as it would mean that no one could ever vote keep on any AFD unless they were expert enough in the subject to improve it to a good article. Again, AFD is not cleanup. —
Lowellian (
reply) 13:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
-
WP:SOFIXIT. If you can't actually turn it into a decent article, you don't actually have an argument for keeping this. Personally, I think that for the most part what needs to be said about layout can be said in a short section in the main article, but even so, if there is to be an article here, I'm for
WP:TNT.
Mangoe (
talk) 13:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. It should be possible to write something useful about this subject (e.g., the advantages and disadvantages of stub-end terminals, loops, and so on), but the current article is a rag-bag of indiscriminate examples, unrelated trivia ("Naming of stations far from served town" has nothing to do with "layout"), and the eye-poppingly obvious (sometimes stations are on curves!). Since the material in the "Configurations of stations" and "Terminus" sections of the current train station article would make a far better basis for an article on railway station layout than current article content, WP:TNT should be invoked. Choess ( talk) 23:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete I don't think WP:SOFIXIT or WP:TNT really apply here; anyway, the existence of an essay is no proof of its validity in a deletion argument. My !vote is based on the nom's application of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If any article were to attempt to catalogue this information, it would have to take an entirely different approach of summarising rather than randomly listing. In my view, that's deleting without prejudice to readdressing the subject, though you could call it TNT if you were that way inclined. Triptothecottage ( talk) 09:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. The arguments for deletion because the content is entirely unsourced original research is compelling in the light of WP:V and WP:NOR. There is consensus that the topic is potentially notable, so all are free to write an actual article about it. Sandstein 12:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Railway station layout
- Railway station layout ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As a railfan myself I feel a certain reluctance in this, but what we have here is pretty much a textbook case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Given the enormous numbers of stations constructed over the years, it is unsurprising that lots of them go beyond the classical terminal or through stations, and so what we get here is a long list of anything that someone or another found "interesting", and again, given the numbers, it's hardly surprising that the various expedients for odd cases got used more than once. But there's no system to it, and what system we see here didn't come from some authority; it's just what people made up on the spot. A (long) list of oddities is not an article on how stations are laid out. Mangoe ( talk) 12:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Addendum: It's instructive to learn that this article was created specifically to fork off a growing list of trivia from railroad station all the way back in 2004. Mangoe ( talk) 13:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:TNT, as the content here is worthless.
- Although if I had a moment, I might then begin it again from scratch. Andy Dingley ( talk) 13:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete This is an article we should have, but in a more descriptive rather than list form. Starting again seems like a good idea, especially as there are a number of pages linking to it. Rcsprinter123 (notify) 20:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete I would agree with the comments above that a worthwhile article could be developed on railway station layouts, but this just reads like a random list with no logic to it and as such is of very little use. Dunarc ( talk) 23:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: This article does have useful information. It also has a lot of unnecessary examples, and other useless stuff. I would edit out most or all of the examples, and the sections about station naming, longest platforms and largest stations, but keep the rest. I would also try to find some references for what remains. The de.wiki article de:Bahnhof has some references for its equivalents of the parts that I would keep (but those references are in German), and there are further possible references in Station building#References (an article I have been translating from pl.wiki) (but I don't have easy access to those references). If it is regarded as acceptable to use German language references as at least a stopgap, I will modify this article as I have suggested and add some German language references to it. Bahnfrend ( talk) 02:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. This is an encyclopedic subject, and indeed, some of the above votes in favor of deletion acknowledge that the subject itself is deserving of an article, just think the current article is not a good one. Deletion is not a substitute for cleanup. To delete instead of improving an article on a notable subject is contrary to the Wikipedia's ethos of steady, collaborative improvement that builds on previous work. It makes no sense to start over from scratch instead of on improving on what has already been written. — Lowellian ( reply) 08:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, but having said that, I can understand the delete argument completely... It needs work, if someone puts the work in, it is worth keeping. As it stands I understand the argument to delete JarrahTree 10:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- WP:TNT A discussion of the various types of railway stations, platform layouts, etc. is definitely encyclopedic. We have side platform, island platform, Spanish solution, balloon loop, etc. An article by this name should just briefly describe, include a {{ main}} tag, and maybe a couple examples for each type. There could also be a section on notable exceptions. But the current list of examples is too massive and too random to be useful. Some of the sections (platform numbering, joint/disjoint stations) are pure WP:SYNTH which should be removed. I could go on. – Train2104 ( t • c) 18:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Article requires improvement, not deletion. Remember, folks, AFD is not cleanup. And it's a notable topic, so the quality of the article is irrelevant. Smartyllama ( talk) 17:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
-
WP:SOFIXIT. If you can't actually turn it into a decent article, you don't actually have an argument for keeping this. Personally, I think that for the most part what needs to be said about layout can be said in a short section in the main article, but even so, if there is to be an article here, I'm for
WP:TNT.
Mangoe (
talk) 13:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Re: "If you can't actually turn it into a decent article, you don't actually have an argument for keeping this." That's not in Wikipedia rules at all, and it's an absurd argument, as it would mean that no one could ever vote keep on any AFD unless they were expert enough in the subject to improve it to a good article. Again, AFD is not cleanup. —
Lowellian (
reply) 13:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Nonsense:
WP:TNT would not exist if this were so, and your argument is exaggerated. If you aren't knowledgeable enough on the subject to be able to tell whether the article is bosh or not, even if that knowledge is acquired-on-the-spot, then you shouldn't be a participant in the discussion. The only improvement good enough for this article is to erase it and, if someone is up to the task, re-create it. My reasonably-informed opinion is that what is already said about station layouts in the main article is sufficient, and that this trivia list needs to go away entirely and not be merged back into the main article. People who are addressing the content of the article, thus far, have agreed with me, though some of them think a worthwhile article could be written instead. If someone manages to do so, I'm OK with that. But the argument that we have to keep the current crap around while we wait for someone to write a different article in its place is not policy and not a guideline.
Mangoe (
talk) 14:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- You're constructing a strawman in changing your argument to "if you aren't knowledgeable enough on the subject to be able to tell whether the article is bosh or not, even if that knowledge is acquired-on-the-spot, then you shouldn't be a participant in the discussion", since that is not what you were originally claiming at all, which was that one cannot be in favor of keeping the article unless one can personally improve it to a decent one. That is not policy and not a guideline. —
Lowellian (
reply) 21:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- The problem with "keep the current crap around" is that if someone does rewrite it properly, at some point they will delete that crap. And immediately afterwards, someone will restore it and they give them a {{ uw-v1}} template and a {{ welcome-idiot}} "welcome", just to rub in the point that pointlessly keeping totally worthless crap is the preservationist approach.
- This is crap. It can't bee "fixed".
Andy Dingley (
talk) 22:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- This is exactly why I keep going back to "sofixit" arguments. When the argument is that what we have is unsalvageable, the counter-argument is to salvage it; mere procedure and appeals to a poorly-named essay section will not cut it. AFD is, in the end, precisely about arguing for "clean-up". Mangoe ( talk) 11:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- You're constructing a strawman in changing your argument to "if you aren't knowledgeable enough on the subject to be able to tell whether the article is bosh or not, even if that knowledge is acquired-on-the-spot, then you shouldn't be a participant in the discussion", since that is not what you were originally claiming at all, which was that one cannot be in favor of keeping the article unless one can personally improve it to a decent one. That is not policy and not a guideline. —
Lowellian (
reply) 21:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Nonsense:
WP:TNT would not exist if this were so, and your argument is exaggerated. If you aren't knowledgeable enough on the subject to be able to tell whether the article is bosh or not, even if that knowledge is acquired-on-the-spot, then you shouldn't be a participant in the discussion. The only improvement good enough for this article is to erase it and, if someone is up to the task, re-create it. My reasonably-informed opinion is that what is already said about station layouts in the main article is sufficient, and that this trivia list needs to go away entirely and not be merged back into the main article. People who are addressing the content of the article, thus far, have agreed with me, though some of them think a worthwhile article could be written instead. If someone manages to do so, I'm OK with that. But the argument that we have to keep the current crap around while we wait for someone to write a different article in its place is not policy and not a guideline.
Mangoe (
talk) 14:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Re: "If you can't actually turn it into a decent article, you don't actually have an argument for keeping this." That's not in Wikipedia rules at all, and it's an absurd argument, as it would mean that no one could ever vote keep on any AFD unless they were expert enough in the subject to improve it to a good article. Again, AFD is not cleanup. —
Lowellian (
reply) 13:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
-
WP:SOFIXIT. If you can't actually turn it into a decent article, you don't actually have an argument for keeping this. Personally, I think that for the most part what needs to be said about layout can be said in a short section in the main article, but even so, if there is to be an article here, I'm for
WP:TNT.
Mangoe (
talk) 13:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. It should be possible to write something useful about this subject (e.g., the advantages and disadvantages of stub-end terminals, loops, and so on), but the current article is a rag-bag of indiscriminate examples, unrelated trivia ("Naming of stations far from served town" has nothing to do with "layout"), and the eye-poppingly obvious (sometimes stations are on curves!). Since the material in the "Configurations of stations" and "Terminus" sections of the current train station article would make a far better basis for an article on railway station layout than current article content, WP:TNT should be invoked. Choess ( talk) 23:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete I don't think WP:SOFIXIT or WP:TNT really apply here; anyway, the existence of an essay is no proof of its validity in a deletion argument. My !vote is based on the nom's application of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If any article were to attempt to catalogue this information, it would have to take an entirely different approach of summarising rather than randomly listing. In my view, that's deleting without prejudice to readdressing the subject, though you could call it TNT if you were that way inclined. Triptothecottage ( talk) 09:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- 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.