Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Appleton Transit Center

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 no consensus. Specifically, there is consensus against deleting the article, but there is no consensus on whether it should remain standalone or be merged or redirected. Further relisting this discussion to attempt to establish such a consensus does not appear meritorious to me; anyone who would like to take further editorial action on the article is free to do so, such as by establishing a consensus on the talk page, or simply following WP:BB. Stifle (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appleton Transit Center

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage. The two sources are about a 2019 shooting. SL93 (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Wisconsin. SL93 (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Valley Transit (Wisconsin). Would be more appropriate to expand on the major facilities in that article instead of creating separate entries. Sounder Bruce 23:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure merging mostly unreferenced content to another article is a good idea, even if the target article is unreferenced. I will support a merge if the content is referenced. SL93 (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm finding plenty of articles on newspapers.com. There's enough here to establish notability for both Valley Transit and its routes, and for the bus station, and so I think they should remain as separate articles. NemesisAT (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NemesisAT Did you find any coverage beyond the routine coverage from Appleton's local newspaper The Post-Crescent? The sources about the shooting certainly show no notability. SL93 (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all the coverage I found was in The Post-Crescent. However, that doesn't mean we haven't passed WP:GNG, which does not forbid local coverage. Please see the source table below. NemesisAT (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree because multiple news articles from one newspaper is still one source. The shooting articles don't help because shootings can occur anywhere. SL93 (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are written by multiple journalists over a period of over twenty years. And even if you do want to count them as one source, an article can be kept on the basis of one substantial source and that is what you get if you combine the content of all the Post-Crescent articles. NemesisAT (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where you received the information that one substantial source is enough. Of course the local news covered it throughout the years. Local news always does that for local interests that remain for years. I could flood Wikipedia with almost any establishment I wish to create articles on if that showed notability. SL93 (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Of course the local news covered it throughout the years." Hence why it is notable. This is not a small village, Appleton has a population of 75,000. A bus terminus serving 75,000 people is worthy of an article here, in my opinion. As for WP:OTHERSTUFF, if you have enough sources then go ahead, write this articles. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, there is no space limit. NemesisAT (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the hundreds of AfDs I have participated in over the years, I still highly disagree with you based on the results of those AfDs. I really don't care if it's a small village or a large city. I can't go ahead with those articles because I know the end results. SL93 (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We will have to just disagree. SL93 (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.newspapers.com/image/?clipping_id=96069122&fcfToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJmcmVlLXZpZXctaWQiOjI4OTM5Nzg4NywiaWF0IjoxNjQ1NTM3ODMyLCJleHAiOjE2NDU2MjQyMzJ9.tr27CSUwQzzG8i9xS2-GVkXCgrY-C-2HziPj5G46MRM	Third-party analysis	The Post-Crescent is a long-running daily newspaper	Article focuses on the transit centre	✔ Yes
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/96165393/mayor-proposes-6-million-transit-center/	Third-party analysis			✔ Yes
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/96071325/cheaper-to-build-new-transit-center/				✔ Yes
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/96072964/new-smaller-transit-centre-backed/				✔ Yes
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/96065802/bus-transfer-center-is-finally-complete/				✔ Yes
https://eu.postcrescent.com/story/news/2018/10/23/end-era-greyhound-ends-bus-service-north-milwaukee/1727249002/			Passing mention	✘ No
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/16/us/wisconsin-firefighter-killed-medical-call/index.html			Passing mention	✘ No
https://eu.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/2019/05/16/appleton-shooting-what-we-know/3690802002/			Passing mention	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Comment Those references that are supposed to be good are annoucements of work order, work completion. How can they be considered coverage that satisfies WP:SIRS. They fail WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep^Talk 17:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIR is clearly linked by mistake. A bus station isn't a company so WP:CORPDEPTH doesn't apply. Also, did you follow me here after your recent ANI edit? NemesisAT (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: did you follow me here? NemesisAT (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Valley Transit (Wisconsin) and expand the information at the facilities area.Gusfriend (talk) 11:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This vote doesn't actually provide any rationale on why a redirect would be beneficial to our readers. I think one clear benefit of keeping an organisation article separate from a physical structure article is that then the transit centre can be linked to coordinates that appear at the top of the article and allow the article to be included in "nearby articles" lists for mobile users. NemesisAT (talk) 11:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there's Plenty of ongoing coverage. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:02, 8 March 2022 (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.