Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen Street Bus Terminal

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 of the debate was no consensus to delete --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

nn bus terminal --Aranda56 05:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it's a bus terminal. Not every single thing that exists in Singapore deserves an article. Zoe 05:55, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Informative, Category:Bus stations is well established. Nominator should get out more. Charles Matthews 07:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. We've got scores of Metro and bus station articles from other countries, so just because this is from Singapore is no valid reason to delete it. It could use a cleanup though. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:26, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A bus terminal with only one bus line is little more than a bus stop. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't think it should go because it's in Singapore, that wasn't the original reason for nomination. It's because it's verging on the trite. Category:Bus stations may be all very well, but that doesn't mean that every single bus station in the world needs to go on there. Barking and Catford Bus Garages and Willesden Depot are missing from London, for a start. Where would it end? Peeper 09:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. It is an International bus and provides one of the links to Malaysia. Stamford spiney 09:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, international bus. Kappa 09:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Perhaps I'm missing a policy here, but this doesn't seem any more notable than any other feature, building, shop or flowerbed I happen to pass by in the street. If there are other articles about bus stations that also have absolutely no encyclopaedic information whatsoever, I say delete them too. --Last Malthusian 10:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further to that, I don't even see how it could be 'expanded' as the stub bit requests. It's a bus stop - what more is there to say? Average queuing times? Famous people that used to get on the bus there? Whether it smells of urine or not? Last Malthusian 10:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great, now I'm imagining Category:South Asian bus stops that smell of urine as a featured category in Kappapedia. Nandesuka 13:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not a bus stop it is a bus station or terminus. There are two other Queen Street bus stations on Wiki already, as weel as countless others, including the entire system in Perth, Australia, which includes Park and Rides bus stops. I thought Wiki should be all inclusive (ie as a paperless work, it can be exhaustive in scope). Stamford spiney 13:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Wikipedia is not paper" does not mean that useful, encyclopedic information can not be overwhelmed and diluted by the presence of unencyclopedic trivia. One of our responsibilities as editors is not only to write material, but to use our judgment in terms of deciding whether that material makes the encyclopedia better, or just makes it bigger. Nandesuka 13:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO the "dilution" argument makes no sense at all. If people look up France, they will get an article about France, not a minor article. Calsicol 14:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You haven't thought it through. There's the obvious dilution of "give me a random link" being more likely to return a useless stub on a dumb subject — like this one — but let's put that aside. Part of the value of an encyclopedia is in the selection and ordering of material, as well as the inclusion. Inclusion of a main article on a subject is an implicit assertion that the topic is notable. If Wikipedia becomes known as a place that asserts that random bus stations with no distinguishing characterics in Singapore are important main topics, then our credibility is diminished accordingly: we become known not as an encyclopedia, but as a garbage dump. This article is, essentially, the geographic equivalent of a dicdef. Unless there's some actual aspect of this bus station that is encyclopedic, let wikitravel or some other more appropriate site catalog it. Nandesuka 16:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, there seems to be precedent for including bus stations. If this article is kept, the other Singaporean bus articles should also be edited to include the template. — JIP | Talk 14:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly will be known to a large number of people. Calsicol 14:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This has 32 hits on Google and is only mentioned in context with the 170 bus. Delete Pilatus 15:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many hits should a bus station have? If somebody wants to write about, it is factual, non-opinionated, non vanity, non spam and does not breach copyright; surely it can't be doing any harm ? Stamford spiney 15:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • • It's not specially distinctive and from what I have seen appears only in the context of the bus that goes to Johor Bahru, a city not too far from Singapore. Wikipedia is not a timetable. (Victoria Coach Station, the gold standard of bus stations has 40700 Google hits, by the way.) Pilatus 15:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's a friggin' bus terminal. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, significant bus terminal. JYolkowski // talk 18:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.—encephalonέγκέφαλος  19:18:47, 2005-09-05 (UTC)
• Delete nn --TimPope 20:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's a bus terminal not a bus stop. It's not something that particulaly interests me but it interested the anon enough to write it so it will probably interest some others enough to want to read it. Many of our articles started life as crappy stubs. There is no reason to suppose that this one might not eventually turn out an excellent stub, but even if it doesn't it still contains useful information right now. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Theresa. Is there a reason for the qualification in your first sentence? I'm just wondering because I'm unsure how your stated reasons for keeping a bus terminal/station would make a bus stop any less worthy of keeping. For example,

"Keep, it's a bus stop. It's not something that particulaly interests me but it interested the anon enough to write it so it will probably interest some others enough to want to read it. Many of our articles started life as crappy stubs..."

And it will always remain as a crappy stub. --Calton | Talk 00:46, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

If we base our decisions only on this reasoning, and not criteria such as, say, the availability of multiple independent reputable sources/studies on the subject that may be used to write an encyclopedic entry (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N), how do we decide if anything can (or should) be deleted? Why not,

• "Keep, it's a phone booth. It's not something that particulaly interests me but it interested the anon enough to write it so it will probably interest some others enough to want to read it. Many of our articles started life as crappy stubs..." Or even,
• "Keep, it's a public garbage can used by quite a few people. It's not something that particulaly interests me but it interested the anon enough to write it so it will probably interest some others enough to want to read it. Many of our articles started life as crappy stubs..."

• It's not immediately apparent to me how the above reasoning might distinguish between these (or even whether it is intended to). Perhaps we should keep them all? With best wishes,—encephalonέγκέφαλος  22:46:36, 2005-09-05 (UTC)
• To confirm I just looked up the name of the station on the SBS website. That bus stop is really just served by exactly one line. Pilatus 23:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn ♥purplefeltangel 23:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it's real and verifiable. We have articles on other bus terminals. Guettarda 23:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's real and verifiable -- and utterly unimportant. And a whole SERIES of articles on Singapore bus terminals? PLEASE. --Calton | Talk 00:46, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • You mean as opposed to whole articles on Star Trek episodes, or separate articles on Tom Riddle and [Lord Voldemort]]? We have articles on US towns with <10 residents. Why are those important and this not? Guettarda 19:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not quite as notable as your local high school. — Phil Welch 00:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with prejudice. This crappy stub -- inflated by an over-sized template devoted to a whole series of other utterly unimportant bus stops -- is longer than articles on entire CITIES. --Calton | Talk 00:46, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. With repect to Nandesuka,Calton, Peter and others, it is not "just a bus stop". A little research would show that it is the main departure point for bus services between Singapore and Malaysia, and huge numbers of people (in the low seven figures), including many tourists from Western countries will pass though this terminal each year. There are numerous other bus station articles, and this one has services that link two countries. Pilatus is correct but misleading - the terminus is served by one SBS Transit line, AND at least 3 other companies that run express buses between the two countries (one runs every 7 minutes from 6.30am to midnight daily). Services to other cities in Malaysia also depart from that Bus Terminal. It was built 20 years before, and is as impressive in terms of passenger volume and area served as the George Washington Bridge Bus Station, which is not up for deletion. Information that could be included, but isn't there ATM is the interesting method of clearing customs on both sides of the border (Get off bus, take belongings, bus leaves, clear customs, get on next bus, travel accross causeway, repeat). Google and ye shall find.--inks 01:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're defending a bus terminal, dude. This is just one among thousands and doesn't add more encyclopedic information than any one of those thousands; it's non-notable buscruft. / Peter ^Isotalo 06:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've clearly outlined why this is more than just "a bus terminal" - there are other entries for bus termini much less notable than this one - it follows logically that either we delete all of them, or we keep this article.--inks 00:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then it's very obvious to me that pretty much all of them have to go. I don't see either guidelines nor common sense as good reasons to keep these articles around. I'm sure bus-n-road aficionados have more than enough info online about these things alreafy without having to stake a claim to Wikipedia as well. / Peter ^Isotalo 09:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No problemo - but are you going to be The One Who Placeth 4000 Bus Station Articles on AfD? :D --inks 10:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Bus terminals have a place like metro stations. Besides, it is still the only terminal here to have an international public bus route for decades.--Huaiwei 11:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep bus terminals. --SPUI (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Intercity bus terminus. WP:POINT - Mailer Diablo 20:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep verifiability, , these are objective criteria. notability is subjective and infected personal and cultural biases. If someone took the time to write it, and others take the time to defend it (unlike vanity articles) then proposed non-notability by itself isn't a reason to delete it and all these notability arguments waste everyones time. SchmuckyTheCat 23:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Vsion 23:11, 6 September 2005 (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.