Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doncaster North services

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 and redirect to List of motorway service areas in the United Kingdom. I find the argument that this is a populated place and therefore meets GEOLAND to be particularly twisted. And regardless of ROADOUTCOMES, in the end an article needs to meet GNG and there is consensus that this one doesn't. Randykitty (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doncaster North services

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

Doncaster North services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability, and I'm not sure that service stations are notable enough to have articles. If it is important it could be mentioned in the article about the motorways it is next to. If this article is deleted then some of the articles for the other service stations in the UK should be PRODed. Jc86035 (talk) 12:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the one US case where there are links at all to rest areas, they all point to one section of the New Jersey Turnpike article which lists them. I think that's only because they have names. Honestly I'm having a hard time seeing the notability of rest areas but I'm sure I'm about to be instructed otherwise. Mangoe (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Going to have to go with delete as none of the arguments I'm seeing in favor of keeping are better than "is too!" Mangoe (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jeni: I don't usually edit in this topic area or at AfD, but do you have sources which relate to this particular service station? Jc86035 (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rest stops in the US range from mere parking areas (though generally with some sort of rest rooms) to the complexes found along I-95 and the NJ Turnpike. The latter match the description of the British facilities, but while one can perhaps find some routine news briefs about them, they are, when all is said and done, just rest areas, and the description of these says the same. Mangoe (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • These service areas are not much different than small shopping centres, which we already have a whole deletion sorting category for. Most shopping centres in the UK have their own postcodes, that doesn't make them notable however. Furthermore, majority of these services articles contain little more than travel guide content, including websites to hotels and other businesses in the area. Ajf773 (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Necrothesp: We can't draw conclusions from those AFDs, which were flawed to begin with. The nominators wanted to delete all of the articles at once, even though some of the service stations are clearly notable, so it's not really surprising that they were both closed with a consensus to keep all the articles. That has nothing to do with whether this particular article passes the GNG. Jc86035 (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply not true. The argument is that all British motorway service stations are notable. Good reasons have been given on those AfDs and those reasons have not changed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to rely on flawed AfDs from almost a decade ago, as notability guidelines have changed. Also, the discussion wasn't extensive - it hasn't really been addressed from ten years ago, when notability guidelines were a bit different. The ROADOUTCOMES blurb was added by someone who contributed to one of those AfDs, and it's completely unclear to me why a UK service station would be presumptively notable, but a Croatia service station wouldn't be - especially where the UK service station fails WP:GNG like this one does. SportingFlyer talk 05:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ROADOUTCOMES is an essay, not policy. We should not automatically assume that because something is "generally notable" in an essay topic that it is inherently notable in Wikipedia policy. Who also made the decision that service areas in Britain (but no other country) were generally notable? If it was on the basis of an outcome of a mass AfD (which was always going to end up as a trainwreck) then the fallback should consider reliable sources if there are any. Shopping centres covering a larger area and a greater number of facilities aren't always notable and I don't see why smaller services areas should have a higher status. Ajf773 (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The reason Jeni's argument about "all UK services stations are notable" usually works is because traditionally they have all had enough coverage in reliable sources to write a reasonable article about them (eg: see the good article Watford Gap services which has a whole section on being the "feeding trough" for 1960s rock bands, easily verifying it's not just some random building in the middle of nowhere). In the case of Doncaster North, with a search for sources, we've got a source that shows it exists, a passing mention, and some random news tidbit in The Sun. There's just nothing of substance to be able to write an article around it. Of course, if they were to pay tribute to the other Doncaster North and rename it Miliband services (with free complementary bacon sandwich), we might have something. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The word "populated" means that there are people there. A motorway service is required to be open 24*7 and so there are always people there. There is a hotel in the complex and so people sleep there too. WP:GEOFEAT refers to structures such as dams and bridges which are typically not so populated. Andrew D. (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, nobody lives there - otherwise, all hotels would be inherently notable. SportingFlyer talk 00:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a service station + a few other shops and smaller than most shopping centres. Notability is NOT inherited just because it is a geographic feature and it exists. Ajf773 (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GEOLAND establishes our common practise that populated places which are geographically distinct merit articles. One reason for this is Wikipedia has a role as a gazetteer per WP:5. Service areas are similar to railroad stations, airports and other transport nexuses which routinely get articles. They are signposted, substantial and legally recognised. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 07:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A shopping center is not a populated place, and that's in essence what these service areas are. This "every dot is sacred" approach does not have consensus; people are largely willing to have an article on every permanent settlement, but the notion that every commercial area, whether established with the help of the government or not, is not accepted. Mangoe (talk) 10:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have many articles about shopping centres and so that analogy fails as an argument for deletion. But shopping is not the main function of a service area, which is more related to transportation. Mangoe has written numerous articles about lighthouses, which are another type of transport nexus. They may or may not be populated but, either way, they are significant landmarks. I take the same view of service areas; consider that they are a valid per WP:GEOLAND and so my !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lighthouses do not fall under WP:GEOLAND but rather WP:GEOFEAT as either an "artificial geographical feature" or an "artificial feature related to infrastructure." It's a similar story here. The difference is WP:GEOLAND assumes notability as long as the place can be verified, as Wikipedia is a gazetteer. WP:GEOFEAT only grants presumed notability to a select class of features (cultural/national heritage/protected sites with verifiable information beyond simple statistics), and if the article doesn't meet that standard, it has to meet WP:GNG. I'm fine if you think this meets WP:GNG and we'll disagree, but service stations are not presumptively notable under any current geographic standards. SportingFlyer talk 22:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The references in the article fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY as do all the other sources I can find in my own searching. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—fails WP:GNG. When we deal with certain article subject areas, we presume notability. This is because editors have repeatedly determined that those subjects usually pass WP:GNG or meet another one of Wikipedia's core functions, so it's been a fair assumption that the rest of the articles in that area will as well. That's why we have pages like WP:ROADOUTCOMES to document these general findings to forestall endless AfD discussions with the same results. This has been a good rule of thumb, but it comes with a corollary: when a specific article is shown to fail the GNG test, then that article loses the notability presumption and gets deleted.
    It's been mentioned above that Wikipedia has a gazetteer function. Since a motorway service area isn't a populated place, and traditional gazetteers lack extensive coverage of MSAs, this article can't avail itself of any exception to GNG for this Wikipedia function.
    Additionally, it may be time to revisit ROADOUTCOMES' statement that UK MSAs are generally notable based on recent AfDs and the demonstration above that it's based on presumptions flowing from just two flawed discussions long ago. Imzadi 1979 → 18:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Imzadi1979: I think removing / revising ROADOUTCOMES makes sense; as I said above, the reason we generally have articles on British service areas is because they tend to meet GNG anyway. For example, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardiff West services, the article was kept (or at least not deleted) primarily because I expanded it and added many more sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That needs to be revisited and probably removed - that sentence was added in 2009 after two AfDs, both of which would likely be resolved differently today, especially since a number of UK motorway service areas have been deleted recently. I started a discussion on this on the talk page a few weeks back and if this is deleted I'll probably just be bold and remove or modify the outcome text. SportingFlyer talk 02:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gidonb: That has nothing to do with whether this article in particular is notable. There's no policy or guideline that states notability is presumed for British service stations. Jc86035 (talk) 06:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly fails the WP:GNG; what we're dealing with here is (ultimately) a run-of-the-mill shopping center. The claim in WP:ROADOUTCOMES about services clearly isn't good law given recent contrary AfDs and speedy deletions. It's meant to be descriptive, it doesn't carry the weight of policy, and it's inaccurate to boot. The claims about WP:GEOLAND must fail as well; if it applied to services where the population is 100% transient then every major (or minor) commercial complex would be presumptively notable, and this is not so. WP:GEOFEAT is obviously the applicable guideline inasmuch as this is a complex of buildings, but that section requires significant coverage in line with the GNG, and none is on offer here. Mackensen (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. The argument that service stations fall under the category of "populated places" is entirely baseless, if not ridiculous, as anyone remotely familiar with the oil marketing & distribution sector would tell us. I hope we do not have to argue too much about that. As to the point made about service stations requiring "acts of Parliament," at least in the UK, it is a disingenuous one: Parliaments pass laws that set the framework of requirements for a service station to open and operate. The permissions for each and every station, big or small, to operate are issued by the competent local authorities according to those laws.
As to WP:ROADOUTCOMES, it is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Even so, the text of that proposed essay advises editors to avoid weak or illogical arguments, such as "We always keep these articles". End of story. -The Gnome (talk) 09:59, 7 August 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Doncaster_North_services&oldid=1073376789"