413:
state "It may be considered that if enough attributable information is available about a station on a main system to verify that it exists, it generally is appropriate for the subject to have its own article. For ... stations on metro, light rail, tram, people mover, or heritage railway lines, if
303:
I don't have time to do anything myself right now, but "unsourced" does not equate to "unsourceable", but generally the following should be merged if not already covered by the target article: location, key dates (e.g. opening), previous names (if any), the line it's on, services, the area and/or
451:
I'm aware of that. But the fact that the article is unsourced means that the existence of sources can't be taken for granted. I should think it's incumbent on those of you claiming that there is attributable information to be salvaged to demonstrate that reliable sources exist.
279:
It means that it should not be deleted. If it passes the GNG then it should have an article, if it doesn't then it should be merged (and, implicitly, redirected) to the article about the line or system. This is why I prefixed my comment "keep or merge" not "keep".
266:, but what consensus? The section you link to is awkwardly written ("It may be considered that..."??) but it does explicitly say "For ... stations on metro, light rail, ... if insufficient source material is available for a comprehensive article,
224:). I don't believe this light rail station is notable, and there are no sources in the article to bolster any claim to notability. There's no question that the system as a whole is notable, but individual stations are rather
181:
414:
insufficient source material is available for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the station in an article about the line or system that the station is on." In this instance, there is sufficient material.
304:
attractions/facilities it serves, transport connections (or a summary of these if there are lots), any notable features or differences to other stations (architecture, facilities, only station with or without X, etc).
270:." (Emphasis mine.) That doesn't in any way imply that all rail stations are presumptively notable. On the contrary, it clearly points out that station articles must pass the GNG. Does this one?
175:
471:
134:
245:
491:
107:
102:
111:
141:
94:
221:
196:
163:
17:
157:
98:
503:
483:
456:
446:
432:
423:
399:
390:
373:
369:
356:
336:
313:
298:
289:
274:
257:
235:
76:
55:
153:
69:
523:
225:
40:
203:
410:
90:
82:
428:
That's an interesting assertion. Where is this attributable information? The article attributes no sources.
365:
519:
61:
36:
169:
419:
499:
479:
442:
333:
309:
285:
253:
189:
386:
268:
it is better to mention the station in an article about the line or system that the station is on
229:
217:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
518:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
350:
415:
52:. General consensus. As a aside, "test cases" should be PROD'd rather than sent to AfD.
495:
475:
438:
330:
305:
281:
263:
249:
453:
429:
396:
382:
345:
295:
271:
232:
128:
294:
The information in the article is unsourced. What is there to merge?
348:
and our mission of providing information appropriate to an almanac.
512:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
437:
Once again, "unsourced" and "unsourceable" are not the same.
246:
Knowledge:Notability (Railway lines and stations)#Stations
216:
for potential deletion of all of (or the majority of) the
381:
per consensus on these transportation-related articles.
124:
120:
116:
188:
472:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
526:). No further edits should be made to this page.
492:list of New York-related deletion discussions
202:
8:
490:Note: This debate has been included in the
470:Note: This debate has been included in the
489:
469:
395:What consensus? Where is it recorded?
244:per very long standing consensus (see
7:
222:List of Buffalo Metro Rail stations
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
230:Knowledge is not a guidebook.
504:16:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
484:16:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
457:18:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
447:16:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
433:23:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
424:14:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
400:03:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
391:20:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
374:23:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
357:14:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
337:12:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
314:21:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
299:17:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
290:16:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
275:16:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
258:11:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
236:20:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
77:08:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
543:
515:Please do not modify it.
91:Lafayette Square station
83:Lafayette Square station
32:Please do not modify it.
411:notability guidelines
220:articles (found at
366:Andreas Philopater
218:Buffalo Metro Rail
506:
486:
364:per Thryduulf. --
59:
56:non-admin closure
534:
517:
353:
207:
206:
192:
144:
132:
114:
74:
68:
66:
53:
34:
542:
541:
537:
536:
535:
533:
532:
531:
530:
524:deletion review
513:
351:
329:per Thryduulf.
226:run-of-the-mill
149:
140:
105:
89:
86:
70:
62:
60:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
540:
538:
529:
528:
508:
507:
487:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
404:
403:
402:
376:
359:
339:
324:
323:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
317:
316:
264:User:Thryduulf
210:
209:
146:
85:
80:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
539:
527:
525:
521:
516:
510:
509:
505:
501:
497:
493:
488:
485:
481:
477:
473:
468:
467:
458:
455:
450:
449:
448:
444:
440:
436:
435:
434:
431:
427:
426:
425:
421:
417:
412:
408:
405:
401:
398:
394:
393:
392:
388:
384:
380:
377:
375:
371:
367:
363:
360:
358:
355:
354:
347:
343:
340:
338:
335:
332:
328:
325:
315:
311:
307:
302:
301:
300:
297:
293:
292:
291:
287:
283:
278:
277:
276:
273:
269:
265:
261:
260:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
242:Keep or merge
240:
239:
238:
237:
234:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
205:
201:
198:
195:
191:
187:
183:
180:
177:
174:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
155:
152:
151:Find sources:
147:
143:
139:
136:
130:
126:
122:
118:
113:
109:
104:
100:
96:
92:
88:
87:
84:
81:
79:
78:
75:
73:
67:
65:
57:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
514:
511:
406:
378:
361:
349:
341:
326:
267:
241:
213:
211:
199:
193:
185:
178:
172:
166:
160:
150:
137:
71:
63:
49:
47:
31:
28:
262:I'm sorry,
176:free images
416:Cwmhiraeth
352:Jim Miller
212:This is a
520:talk page
496:Thryduulf
476:Thryduulf
439:Thryduulf
331:Mackensen
306:Thryduulf
282:Thryduulf
250:Thryduulf
214:test case
72:Nightfury
37:talk page
522:or in a
383:Alansohn
135:View log
39:or in a
182:WP refs
170:scholar
108:protect
103:history
454:Powers
430:Powers
409:- The
397:Powers
346:WP:5P1
334:(talk)
296:Powers
272:Powers
233:Powers
154:Google
112:delete
64:Nördic
362:Merge
197:JSTOR
158:books
142:Stats
129:views
121:watch
117:links
16:<
500:talk
480:talk
443:talk
420:talk
407:Keep
387:talk
379:Keep
370:talk
344:per
342:Keep
327:Keep
310:talk
286:talk
254:talk
190:FENS
164:news
125:logs
99:talk
95:edit
50:keep
248:).
204:TWL
133:– (
502:)
494:.
482:)
474:.
445:)
422:)
389:)
372:)
312:)
288:)
256:)
228:.
184:)
127:|
123:|
119:|
115:|
110:|
106:|
101:|
97:|
498:(
478:(
441:(
418:(
385:(
368:(
308:(
284:(
252:(
208:)
200:·
194:·
186:·
179:·
173:·
167:·
161:·
156:(
148:(
145:)
138:·
131:)
93:(
58:)
54:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.