Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Facilities on the Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)

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 keep. Relevant and reasonable concerns over both the title and nature of content have been raised, but there is a general consensus to keep this article and content in general. This AfD should not be taken as an endorsement of the state of the current article, but some variant of it is generally accepted to be worthy of inclusion. ~ mazca ^talk 01:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Facilities on the Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) (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)

Written like a travel guide and seems to be original research. Fails WP:GNG due to this. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The page is obviously a sub-article spun-off from Mass_Rapid_Transit_(Singapore)#Facilities_and_services. If this seems like too much detail then we just merge back into the main article and so, per WP:PRESERVE, there is no case for deleting anything. As an example of a source which discusses station design in detail, see Urban Transformations: Transit Oriented Development. Andrew D. (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Keep - The original article is a FA article, to avoid going to too much depth this is clearly warranted , however, I agree that the article needs to be resorted out - many maintenance tag. To nominator, WP:NOTGUIDE does not apply here as these are facilities. It cannot be violating WP:OR (so clearly) as sources are there. One more point, you don't fail WP:GNG based on WP:NOTGUIDE or WP:OR but rather in general , coverage of X in more than two, in depth, independent sources and one should be out of the region. For specific topics, there are more guidelines such as WP:AUTHOR / WP:NHOSPITALS and etc. Failing not guide can just remove the guide section. Failing OR can just be cited. I hope this clarifies. --Quek157 (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)strike off --Quek157 (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

• "In addition, some stations have toilets in their paid area, including Bugis, Paya Lebar and Clementi. [citation needed]" - removed this paragraph, I agree this is nonsense which is clearly not true. Clementi station toilet is near the newly constructed exit, Paya Lebar EWL toilet is at outside station near to the ticket office CCL one is outside the paid area (although can jump through) as well as Bugis (where have such toilet) - I deliberately did this is to illustrate what should be done when facing OR / NOTGUIDE. (For this NOTGUIDE / OR). It is to discuss at talk page not haul it to Afd, especially with a FA article spun off which is required or else FAC will fail. I am really trying my personal best to WP:DONTBITE. --Quek157 (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)strike off , sorry I'm confused for a moment. Partially due to ani --Quek157 (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy keep its parent page is FA and hence it is required to have subpages for it to pass the summary style criteria. Also, constant with what is stated above, sections that fail WP:NOTGUIDE can be removed or converted to something that doesn't fail the criteria. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 23:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

: Just a note here the criteria is notability. a subject notability have nothing to do with what is written. if it is not notable there's nothing we write can make it notable. if a subject is notable, even one liner verified can be an article at stub. I think we are too caught up in GA reviews now --Quek157 (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, the notability is established for this article is in the WP:GNG as the subject doesn't have any other criteria. The straits times article cited is national press independent. The first few sources are really archive news. sorry it is only available in Singapore not Colorado but I see is all from straits times too. there are 4 2 (updated --Quek157 (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC) as someone amalgamated the sources) articles. to be strict it is one source. The business times source is the second one. i will say other sources are not reliable as press releases are primary and blogs are no no .for this WP:GNG is met hence this is not a case of WP:AVOIDSPLIT. I am sorry that I'm too carried away with the ani as well as ga review that I am not arguing as what Afd needs. As a afc submission reviewer I need to be clearer here. Just to add I will not hesitate to suggest delete or merge a non notable page to one that is notable even if this will make the page lose it's FA status. The editors simply need to be more concise then.Quek157 (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC) updated --Quek157 (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. R22-3877 (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. R22-3877 (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)#Facilities and services. Some of the content is of importance to the SMRT and can be placed there, but a lot of it isn't. We don't really need a whole article dedicated to facilties. Ajf773 (talk) 06:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the title may not be the best, but based on what I mentioned, it still warrant a full article --Quek157 (talk) 10:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - with merge discussion on talkpage (I will insist those who voted merge / delete to participate - or else no more further AFD on this) .upon re-reading the page, the lead seems to be able to replicate on all MRT station pages in Singapore. Layouts are mentioned in all the stations, facilities seems repeated from the main MRT page, Passengers Information System is a mergeable part (uncited), BFA can just be merged, I now support the merger as per Ajf773. However, I will propose this be a redirect after merger being completed. The FA status of the article maybe in doubt but should not be consideration here. This can be notable, and the redirect will allow recreation once enough information is put in place. In addition, do ignore my remarks in small above, those are just ranting to the nominator as a form of coaching. I hope this settles the issues. Per Andrew Davidson, it may seem a lot of information, so merge may be the best to preserve these --Quek157 (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

modified per Quek157 (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC) - per Bearian take below --Quek157 (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep what is sourced, but cut out the cruft. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian:, cut out already, and nice to see another familiar name here, can you consider being a sysop again? --Quek157 (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Quek157: due to issues and stress IRL, I can't. Thank you anyway. Bearian (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:::@Bearian: welcomed. This is a 2005 page for AFD and good to see 2007 editors commenting. Anyway is created by Mailer Diablo. I don't know why is hauled to Afd when it is such an experienced user page --Quek157 (talk) 21:36, 20 May 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.