Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killygordon railway station

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 Don't delete. There's no interest in deletion apart from the nominator here. Discussions about merging or redirecting can take place on the talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Killygordon railway station

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

No indication of notability, no significant coverage in reliable sources. No sources found via Google Web, Google Books or the Google News archive. Apparently this is one of a set of articles based on the same list of Irish railway stations. If this one gets deleted, I'll probably mass-nominate all similar articles. Huon (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per long standing convention, all rail stations are notable, even if they're not longer operating. It's difficult to see vowing to "mass nominate" as good faith effort as it is seldom so and never when it is opposed to consensus.--Oakshade (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC) --Oakshade (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wasn't aware that yet another topic claimed "inherent notability" independent of sources and the GNG. Anyway, this is meant as a test balloon on a class of very similar articles based on the same "source". If this is deleted, consensus would probably support deletion of the other similar articles, too - if it's kept, I won't bother with nominating any of the others, individually or collectively. See also WP:AGF. Huon (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am not a railway enthusiast, but I think one of the wonders of wikipedia, is that the railway enthusiasts have given us information on almost every railway station in the world. I think that is splendid and useful. The information is not being challenged, and I am sure that various local history sources could confirm it. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, that the article needs expansion is not a reason to delete. Convention is that stations are capable of meeting GNG and thus articles are justified. Mjroots (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Railway stations are considered to be notable, as they have proven to generally have enough coverage to pass GNG in the past. The sources aren't always convenient or online, but they should be there. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 12:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just about every rail station has gotten mentioned in the press over many years. You'll also be likely to find coverage in book-length local histories if they exist. Since this one still exists (as a building; I understand that it closed), have you checked to see if it has historic site status? 2001:18E8:2:1020:39DA:295B:5548:EA5E (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Killygordon#Transport as there doesn't seem to be much to say about this building. Warden (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who told you there wasn't much to say about this building? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.102.241 (talk) 03:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I determined this myself by reviewing the sources out there which seem to contain little detailed information. Warden (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect There's a bunch of almost identical articles about these stations which carry almost no unique information: compare Cavan Halt railway station. All this info could be presented in a table on Finn Valley Railway: instead of a bunch of articles which say "Station A serves town B was opened at time D and lies between E and F" you just have a list of stations in order, with location and opening date. If a station is really notable by Wikipedia standards (and a self-published book by a local historian doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards) then the article could be re-created. WP:RAILOUTCOMES says stations are "normally" notable, but not invariably so. If people believe this station is notable, they should provide references, as is standard policy in other Wikipedia deletion discussions. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. General consensus is that all railway stations are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:54, 23 August 2012 (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.