This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Amarkov (talk | contribs) at 23:54, 22 December 2006 (→[]: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:54, 22 December 2006 by Amarkov (talk | contribs) (→[]: re)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Jules Joffrin (Paris Métro)
- Jules Joffrin (Paris Métro) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unsourced article of a subway station named after a person who doesn't have a wikipedia article. Doesn't meet Verifiability and falls in line with what wikipedia is not sections 1.7, 1.8. Alan.ca 22:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Some things may be inherently notable. Subway stations are not one of them. -Amarkov edits 22:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Charlie 22:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Jules François Alexandre Joffrin has an article, by the way; he appears notable. --Charlene 22:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Subway stations are notable. Misplaced Pages has many good articles on individual subway stations in New York, Paris and elsewhere. The existence of the station is adequately demonstrated by the map, which also confirms that the town hall and a local church are nearby. You don't need to footnote something that can be found on a map. There is even an article on this station in the Norwegian Misplaced Pages at no:Jules Joffrin (Paris Metro). As for Jules François Alexandre Joffrin, he not only has an article in the English-language Misplaced Pages, he has an article in the 1911 Britannica as well. And even if he didn't, he would be notable for a number of reasons, including having served as a member of France's national parliament. --Eastmain 00:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Can you cite a policy that states the notability requirements for a subway station? Alan.ca 02:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- The appropriate passage in WP:AFDP just says it's under discussion, and the discussion seems unlikely to result in "all subway stations are inherently notable". So establishing notability is probably going to be needed. -Amarkov edits 02:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Eastmain. Well done to the nominator for actually citing their specific concerns, but I think that WP:NOT 1.7 and 1.8 are more targetted at list articles, and there is considerable precedent for station articles in major cities like Paris, London and New York. --Canley 01:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. – Chacor 01:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Chacor, an AfD is not a vote, but a debate, please see Wp:afd#How to discuss an AfD.2FWikietiquette Alan.ca 02:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- And I see two "delete per above" votes. Your point? – Chacor 02:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- As a former administrator and recent candidate for Adminship, I would hope that you would seek to adhere to policy and guidelines of wikipedia. Alan.ca 02:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Um... Nobody actually pays attention to that part, nor does anyone care outside of the particular AfD... -Amarkov edits 02:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- If you have something you want to tell Chacor, please don't do it in this AfD debate. - SpLoT (*C*+u+g) 02:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Fair remark as I agree with the importance of keeping a debate to the point. Keep in mind I was answering his response to my statement about AfD etiquette. I posted the remark not only for Chacor's benefit but for the reading pleasure of anyone else voting in the debate. Alan.ca 06:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge into an article on the Paris Metro. I don't have a problem with this having an article on its own, Paris is notable as a city, thus many things in the city will be notable, including its metro system. Any article on its metro system should describe the stations, so the only question is, is it better to have that in one page, or several? I sort of prefer the latter, but I can live with either. Mister.Manticore 02:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's a good suggestion MM, I concur, merging the page into the subway system article would work well. Alternatively maybe one article could be created that contained all of the stops? Alan.ca 02:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- This article is a stub, but a discussion of the engineering, architecture and history of this station, particularly if someone can provide one or more photographs, could get fairly large. The advantage of having articles on each station is to allow better indexing and categorization, so that a link from another article would point directly to the station's article, not to a lengthy combined article on the entire subway line (this one is on Line 12) which many used would find difficult to navigate. This is why when an article gets longer than about 30 k, editors should try to split it up into several useful sub-articles. Given the precedent that exists for other subway stations, in Paris and elsewhere, I would invite the nominator to withdraw his nomination. --Eastmain 04:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- You may find it useful to learn that you can wikilink directly to a section of an article with ] Alan.ca 06:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- This article is a stub, but a discussion of the engineering, architecture and history of this station, particularly if someone can provide one or more photographs, could get fairly large. The advantage of having articles on each station is to allow better indexing and categorization, so that a link from another article would point directly to the station's article, not to a lengthy combined article on the entire subway line (this one is on Line 12) which many used would find difficult to navigate. This is why when an article gets longer than about 30 k, editors should try to split it up into several useful sub-articles. Given the precedent that exists for other subway stations, in Paris and elsewhere, I would invite the nominator to withdraw his nomination. --Eastmain 04:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment While it may be true that subway stations can, generally speaking, be considered notable, this article contains, in addition to no sources or references other than a map which does not contain the facts cited in the article, no assertion whatsoever of this particular subway station's notability. Being named after a notable person is NOT enough to assert notability. Somewhat trivially, but relevantly, I could name my house after Martin Luther King. Houses, especially historical ones, can be notable, as can places named after notable people, but my house, even if it was so named, would nonetheless fail to be notable in any way. Even if my house was in New York City, for example, or another notable city, even that additional fact would fail to make the house itself notable. So it is, I think, with subway stations. If the information in this article is to be merged with an article about the various stations in the Paris subway system, I would have no problem with its inclusion in WP. However, no sourced statements have shown any assertion of enough notability to stand as an article alone, and I continue to argue for Deletion. Charlie 06:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Is there even a notability guideline for this kind of thing? Alan.ca 07:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment A proposed guideline can be found here. However, and perhaps more significantly, the article cites no sources whatsoever to assert its notability. Note that this also means that the article, as it stands, fails WP:V, because it should, under the policy, "contain only material that has been published by reliable sources." Note also that "The obligation to provide a reliable source
lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." Charlie 11:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I think part of the problem is that most of the information on this subway station is likely to be in French, not that there are no sources whatsoever. So as far as it goes, I don't consider the lack of sources to be an unsurmountable problem, so I'm not too immediately concerned about WP:V in this case. Mister.Manticore 15:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If a lack of sources is not a problem, then please provide some. Charlie 23:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I think part of the problem is that most of the information on this subway station is likely to be in French, not that there are no sources whatsoever. So as far as it goes, I don't consider the lack of sources to be an unsurmountable problem, so I'm not too immediately concerned about WP:V in this case. Mister.Manticore 15:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If anyone is interested, there is a draft guidline for places of local interest WP:LOCAL#Creating_articles_about_places_of_local_interest with a section that discussed article creation criteria. Please remember, this is a proposed guideline. Alan.ca 07:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Stations notable per WP:AFDP. Discussion of inherent station inslusion is at User:Mangoe/Wikipedia is not a timetable, but untill policy is set we'll go by precendent that all stations are included. --Oakshade 17:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Teeny little problem... WP:AFDP doesn't say that. -Amarkov edits 17:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- WP:AFDP says "Subway and railway stations are allowed, but notability is currently under discussion." --Oakshade 18:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- And since notability is currently under discussion in WP:AFDP, it is not helpful to use it to assert that stations are "notable" .Charlie 23:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think they are inherently notable and so far WP:AFDP has agreed. Everyone might not agree and they are free and encouraged to be part of the discussion as Mangoe's page on this issue. --Oakshade 23:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ugh. An ongoing discussion on notability is not a reason to keep every article under the scope of the discussion. -Amarkov edits 23:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think they are inherently notable and so far WP:AFDP has agreed. Everyone might not agree and they are free and encouraged to be part of the discussion as Mangoe's page on this issue. --Oakshade 23:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- And since notability is currently under discussion in WP:AFDP, it is not helpful to use it to assert that stations are "notable" .Charlie 23:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- WP:AFDP says "Subway and railway stations are allowed, but notability is currently under discussion." --Oakshade 18:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Teeny little problem... WP:AFDP doesn't say that. -Amarkov edits 17:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge to an article such as "Paris Métro Stations" - but should definitely not be merged to Paris Métro, which would ruin the article, and see the individuality of each station being lost. Merging to a new article with other stations either by Line or by Arrondissement would be my preference — superbfc — 23:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)