Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sin Ming Road Bus Terminal

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus, defaults to KEEP. Ral315 04:54, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

The entry tells us that this is a closed Singapore bus station that used to be served by just one line. Pilatus 08:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Apparently every rock and twig in Singapore is notable. Zoe 08:35, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • From people that have lived there I hear that Singapore is different. You've got a point, Zoe. Pilatus 08:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well, indeed it is different, as I just reflected in the article. We dont remove articles on structures or anything just because there are no more or a sorry state of their former self. They do have a place in transport history too.--Huaiwei 11:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that ghost towns are notable, but ghost bus terminals just don't cut it! Pilatus 11:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A ghost bus terminal is not notable if it is merely a ghost bus terminal as you think it is. Bus terminals do have a history and do have an impact on local demography and social life too. As a geographer, I should be more than aware of this. We have had academic thesis written just on an otherwise seemingly non-notable bus interchange, and I wrote one of my academic papers analysing the history and geography of another bus interchange as well.--Huaiwei 12:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then let's have wikipedia articles on the bus terminals that there have been academic theses written on and then we'll link to those theses, and then that explains their notability. Having articles on every bus terminal because it might possibly be notable is, it seems to me, a form of original research. Nandesuka 12:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. I don't like it, but there are numerous other examples of this kind of article at Category:Bus stubs. If they stay, this should stay as well. unsigned vote by khaosworks. --Nandesuka 12:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is fallacious. If we accept the premise that we should never delete an article because at least one other article of its kind exists on Wikipedia, it is likely that no articles can ever be deleted. If you think it should be deleted, then vote accordingly on this vote standing by itself, and deal with the "numerous other examples" in their own time. Nandesuka 12:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Pilatus. Nandesuka 12:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Huaiwei. Kappa 12:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Pilatus, and Nandesuka. The article itself doesn't even make a case for notability! Rather than pointing up how this bus terminal has affected local society and demography as Huawei suggests, it in fact does the opposite, alluding to social change (left largely undescribed) which did for the bus station. Sorry, but this is obscure and seriously nn. Peeper 15:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep bus terminals. --SPUI (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable enough. If the point is to bring across the fact that "few terminals of the 1970s era survive today", it could be discussed in Bus transport in Singapore. --Plastictv 16:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — This could be covered well enough with a couple of sentences on the Bus transport in Singapore page. — RJH 17:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Harmless local history. CalJW 18:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep all roadcruft Roodog2k (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:POINT - Mailer Diablo 20:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who's disrupting and what's the point? / Peter ^Isotalo 21:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, verifiable. A merge is okay with me too. JYolkowski // talk 21:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep no reason to delete except for deletionist agenda driven nominator. SchmuckyTheCat 22:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How long before bus stops are wikiworthy? Sabine's Sunbird 22:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell the difference between a bus stop and a bus terminal?--Huaiwei 22:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

uh. yes, I can. Though they can be the same thing. To be precise, then, how long before a pole sticking out of the ground next to the road with a little London Transport or MUNI logo and a number gets its own article? Sabine's Sunbird 05:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, then you obviously cannot tell the difference between a bus stop and a bus terminal in Singapore, because the two are never the same here. A bus stop numbers by the hundreds here, with each one merely a transition stop along roadsides and such and are sometimes as small as a single post from the ground. A bus terminal/interchange, however, is a large structure where at least one bus route terminates, along with the provision of adminstrative offices, berths, and large parking bays for buses. There are about 40 of these structures here. If you think we are calling for an article on a pole in the ground, then your concern is obviously unfounded.--Huaiwei 16:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

" Your concern is obviously unfounded " sounds a bit too strong. :-P — Instantnood 17:07, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I meant a bus station is a stop in a conventional sense, it is a stop on the route (even if it is the last one). In the sense you mean of course I can tell the two apart. I have spent more of my life than I like in bus terminals, and while I laud public transport I find myself unconvinced that a bus terminal deserves an article. This has nothing to do with Singapore, which has a good public trasnport system. It's a general concern. If this was about the bus terminal in Salisbury I'd feel the same way. But seems like I'm, well, maybe not a minority, but it seems that plenty of people disagree with me. But I will vote against poles in the ground. Sabine's Sunbird 01:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then let us take a look at just how big this "pole in the ground" is from space. I illustrate in the two images on the right Jurong East Bus Interchange, one of the articles also on the VFD. The first one shows the extent of the interchange compared to the typical sizes of your normal bus stop, and with an MRT station beside it. You can see the individual buses parked there, so that should give you an idea of its relative scale. Compare with the sizes of nearby buildings as well. Now, look at the second image, which shows its relative size to the entirety of the New town it directly serves (which btw is a relatively small town compared to others in Singapore.) You can still see the terminal's shape clearly even at this scale.

I think it is plain clear from this illustration, that you are not talking about a stick in the ground, not just simply a "large bus stop", but a HUGE one. To say it is not worthy of being on wikipedia is like saying an airport is merely a bigger airstrip, a city a bigger village, a mountain a bigger lump of sand, and so on. Clearly, size is a relative factor which cannot be used as a determining factor alone. What I would like to know, however, is why this seemingly widespread discrimination against bus transport, as thou it and its related articles have less notability than their more facied cousins in aviation and rail transport etc. Again, why do we keep articles on airports (and airstrips), railway stations (and the smallest metro stations), and such, but not bus terminals (and no, I am not refering to bus stops)? Is this again an issue of physical scale? Or do people think somehow that bus transport do not have as much an impact on human civilisation than airplanes, ships, and trains do?--Huaiwei 10:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep --Vsion 23:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a guide to bus routes, it is an encyclopedia. Gamaliel 23:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Are Bus Stops and Terminals the next big wiki thing if it is Im ready to write info for every bus stop in Miami-Dade County Lol. --Aranda56 03:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • To repeat. A bus stop is not a bus terminal. If there are concerns that having aritles on bus terminals will lead to having articles on individual bus stops, than I suppose we should not have an article on planet earth least it may trickle down to us having an article for every grain of sand? Again, I wonder just where the concern is coming from.--Huaiwei 16:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable --Camw 06:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep bus terminals, schools, and battleships. —RaD Man (talk) 07:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete void of encyclopedic value --Mecanismo 18:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Dare I say it? Singaporecruft. Zoe 19:04, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • So Singapore, a population of 5 million is NN? Calling the article 'Singaporecruft' only serve to hinder the principles of Countering systemic bias. - Mailer Diablo 19:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, and I am left wondering if his actions were the result of genuine, unbiased deliberation over the notability of this article, or that of something more personal.--Huaiwei 19:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Gamaliel 19:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "His"? My comment has to do with the fact that every time somebody tries to delete anything having to do with Singapore, we are deluged with personal attacks claiming bias against Singapore. QED. Zoe 21:42, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • In other words, you are admitting you are responding to what you consider as a personal attack? Just as I expected. As for the claim over bias, it seems more like a result of your own insecurity, although I do remember pointing out quite accurately that you do know next to nothing about this place anyway to be able to comment much on its "noteworthiness".--Huaiwei 22:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your repeated personal attacks on me will not be tolerated, and I suggest you desist immediately. Zoe 22:42, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
          • Zoe's first edit on this page [1] is not helping either, and it apparently started all this. --Vsion 23:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, it all started when Huaiwei decided to attack me for having the temerity to think that some inconsequential church doesn't need an article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queenstown Baptist Church. Zoe 19:57, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
              • Your reaction in the wake of having someone else pointing out to you matter-of-factly that you are unable to support your nomination in a cohesive, factual, and verifiable manner is perhaps understandable. That you are an admin is probably not. I find it extremely odd, that the same person who thinks it appriopriate to pass condescending remarks on others, on their people, their city, and all that they represent should think he has the moral authority to tell others not to engage in personal attacks (which there was none as far as the church discussion was concerned).--Huaiwei 21:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Bus terminals are not inherently notable. Be they in Singapore, be they in New York City, whatever. The only systemic bias I'm perpetuating with this vote is a bias against articles on bus terminals. Lord Bob 01:12, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or transwiki to wikitravel if there is a category for this. Vegaswikian 04:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. — Instantnood 09:08, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Another non-notable bus terminal. Please waste everyone's time on something constructive. / Peter ^Isotalo 21:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems a bit too obsessive about bus terminals --redstucco 08:40, 12 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.