521:
against trains stations between neighboring towns/cities, etc. Sometime stations have to be moved and the location is typically the name of the each station. Enough analysis goes into the passenger volume for each station. The opening of each train station typically has some sort of media event. In contrary, there is not much public input to the locations of bus stops. No specific analysis for each bus stop and no media event for each bus stop opening. So I would say train stations are likely to be inherently notable. And if so, it may not need to have secondary sources to be cited for the purpose of notability proof. It still need some reliable primary sources for verifiability.
918:, it has a very high bar for the infrastructure and buildings (stations included) such that one has to reach the historical status. It also refers back to WP:STATION for the ongoing discussion about the notability. Therefore, there is no clear consensus or clear common outcomes in term of the stations. At the very least, if there is a commonly accepted standard developed by consensus to deviate from the GNG, that should be documented as such at the essay level, or at the
507:
notable. There is no need to include independent sources. Primary sources for verification purpose are enough for not getting article deleted because there is no need to prove that a particular high school is notable. Coming back to transportation, I think that it is comparable to whether rail stations vs. bus stops are inherently notable. I would say that train stations are, but not bus stops.
708:
the modern station. (I'm still looking for scoping studies and construction timeline of the new station, and a better closure date of the old station.) As I posted in WP Trains, if I can do this with an article from scratch, then any editor who's willing to do some research can do it with any train station. If this AfD is to be precedent, let it be that.
952:, thanks for your thought-provoking and useful input. I simply think the GNG should apply to any and all Wikiprojects, including Trains and train stations. Simply declaring train stations exempt from the GNG turns Knowledge a directory of train stations when it should be an encyclopedia of train stations. We'll see what happens.
728:
Google Books, News and
Archives to find notability and failed, so yes I have actually done some research but I didn't succeed in proving notability and that's why I launched this AfD to begin with. This I do for every AfD I have nominated. The very fact that you as a clearly skilled railroad researcher are citing
800:
these sources are reliable and they are independent, but they do not verify the notability of this station. This station hasn't won any design awards and it's not a major hub either. Notability would have been verified if the station was the subject in published trade magazines or mainline media like
1063:
inherently notable and are almost never (if ever) deleted. Not many, but a few, and this is one of them (along with secondary schools and universities, to name another couple of examples). It has indeed been argued in the past that maybe these classes shouldn't go to AfD in the first place, but that
913:
essay. It said, "It may be considered that if enough attributable information exists about a station or railway line to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article." That does not say about train stations are presumed to be notable. Also
520:
The reason for me to think that train stations are inherently notable goes to the practice (at least in the United States) of public involvement in the creation of the stations. A new train station will involve multiple rounds of public meetings in multiple municipalities. There are flights for and
707:
per my recent edits to the article. It is now 563 words of prose, with twelve citations. Starting from zero - this is outside my usual geographic area, and thus outside my personal collection of reference materials - I've pieced together a fairly complete history of both the former PRR station and
506:
I never involved in the history of debates about inherent notability of rail (heavy or light) stations. This sounds a lot more like the debates of inherent notability of high schools vs. middle/elementary schools. The results of long standing discussions there were that high schools are inherently
386:
Unfortunately, many (I might not be wrong if I say most) rail 'stations' in the United States look like this photo. Grade level stations, sometime in the middle of the crossing with no shelter. Those includes heavy commuter rails and long distance rail lines like Amtrak. I don't think the shape of
1044:
and with our existing deletion processes. An AfD is
Knowledge's usual venue to assess whether or not a topic is notable; it's obviously fallacious to argue at an AfD that we should close it as a "keep" because we don't need to assess the notability because, err, different articles were previously
727:
of an article, not the notability of its subject. The information would be perfect for
Roebling town or River Line articles. You are clearly a much better researcher on this subject than I am and you still haven't managed to solidly verify the notability of this station. I already trawled though
722:
Looking through the sources you added, my opinion is that the one citing 3 million ridership is good for verifying notability of the line as a whole if it was independently verified, but not this individual station. Planning permissions and studies are primary sources. Primary and self-published
596:
as all the others state about the stipulation that rail stations are notable. With public work projects such as these and the millions of dollars that go into the planning and building of each stop (yes, they cost millions), it's impossible for works such as feasibility studies, environmental
341:
per longstanding precedent regarding train stations. See the years of discussions in the archives. The currently worded guideline (not policy) fails to account for the reality of
Knowledge practice (not unheard of when the guidelines are written by a few editors and their talk pages are rarely
630:
Not all industrial or official building have to do environmental impact reports. If there is any variance for a new building to be approved, it will be done at the zoning or building board which is localized to the specific community. New train stations (at least in the United States) need
904:
Regardless of whether this individual station or this set of stations will survive AfD or not, this begs the question of the generally accepted standard of notability for train stations. Some editors mentioned that all stations is notable as per common outcomes. I checked the
475:
sources, then the station simply isn't notable. Notability of some train station simply isn't inherited by minor light rail stops, non-inheritance is a guiding principle in every other AfD discussion and it ought to be applied to rail articles as well. What do you think,
853:
Fame doesn't imply notability that's true, but importance is exactly what notability is about. Importance implies impact on economy, world history, demographics, art or whatnot. Lack of notability/importance only indicates this station isn't a suitable subject for a
611:
Any industrial or office building in any city costs millions to build and require planning permissions. Such reports and studies are enough to verify the existence of a station, but as primary sources they cannot be used to verify its notability. We need
163:
753:
Roebling is identified by NJ Future (an organization not related to NJ Transit, the line operator) to be one of only a handful of stations that have the greatest potential for development of TOD projects.
157:
306:
Nominators should not !vote in deletion discussions; it is assumed that they wish for deletion based on being the nominator. As such this is a duplicate comment and should be struck.
262:
116:
887:. Both per precedent that railway stations that verifiably exist are notable for individual articles and the sources demonstrating the notability of this individual station.
1064:
hasn't yet been agreed. Nonetheless, it is a perfectly valid argument to say that the article should be kept because clear consensus is to keep these classes of article. --
923:
242:
89:
84:
93:
756:
The historical picture of station in the 1950s and description of relaunching of the River Line in the Images of
America book series (also independent of NJ Transit).
416:, there has been enough material along each stop to distinguish one from the other that can and has been added to each article, including Roebling station. ---------
76:
563:
The longstanding consensus is that such stations are inherently notable. While the sourcing could be improved, there's enough here to establish notability.
463:
Inherent notability is misapplied in this case and for every other very non-notable minor stop as well. Inherent notability, such as of train stations like
123:
801:
major newspapers. If using anything less than mainline media to prove notability, we needa a whole lot more independent & reliable sources.
631:
environmental impact studies, passenger analysis and multiple rounds of public meetings in wider scope (not localized to a specific community).
178:
145:
819:. If the sources are reliable and independent, we can write a comprehensive article which meets our major content policies, including
548:
are generally merged, but light rail, which generally runs on independent right-of-way, is treated as heavy rail in these discussions.
1059:
Whether you agree with it or not, Knowledge works on consensus, and consensus, formed over many AfDs, is that some classes of article
80:
449:
Longstanding precedent that railway stations or stops are inherently notable. Even very minor ones, so long as they can be verified.
736:
like New York Times or
Railway Gazette is an indication to me that notability is an issue, the outcome of this AfD nonwithstanding.
139:
652:
Basically any train station is noteworthy for its own article as others stated. We can improve the article so it's more reliable.
922:
guideline level. If there is no consensus on that yet, the topic of station notability should be specifically discussed, perhaps
909:
but could not find the indication to suggest that there is consensus about about rail stations. It further suggests to go to the
1073:
1054:
1028:
1007:
982:
961:
935:
896:
867:
848:
810:
787:
745:
717:
699:
678:
661:
640:
625:
606:
586:
572:
555:
530:
501:
458:
439:
425:
413:
396:
381:
355:
329:
315:
298:
286:
274:
254:
233:
221:
211:
58:
17:
750:
For this particular station, I think it should be enough to meet the GNG just by some of the inline citations in the article:
135:
858:
article, all those reliable and independent sources are perfect for writing about the stations in the River Line article.
72:
64:
185:
1036:
Whilst this article is likely to be kept - people have found more evidence of this station's notability - the notion of
320:
True, I have changed to a comment. It isn't a vote as such, it's a recommendation and admins will have the final say.
778:
I haven't had a chance to look at more citations, but just the above are enough to convince me of meeting the GNG.
1094:
364:, it's just a stop on the line. There's no major or historical station building and no waiting hall according to
40:
151:
973:, whilst railway stations are presumed to be inherently notable, GNG must still be met. In this case, it is.
713:
906:
616:
for that and none have come forth and that itself is an indication that this station isn't (yet) notable.
1090:
544:. Train stations are notable. This is a common outcome and that carries weight. AadaamS is correct that
36:
1069:
674:
343:
56:
763:
in the document created by
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (independent of NJ Transit).
1050:
892:
657:
552:
351:
311:
171:
285:
if there's anything verifiable to say about non-notable stops on this line it should be merged to
709:
687:
602:
568:
430:
It isn't distiguishability that allows a subject to have a standalone article, it's notability.
220:
the decision for this article could be re-used for other stub articles about tram stops on the
1024:
978:
957:
919:
915:
910:
863:
844:
806:
741:
621:
582:
497:
454:
435:
377:
325:
294:
270:
250:
229:
207:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1089:
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
695:
1065:
670:
421:
412:. Additionally, though the article itself has been repeated on every other stop along the
53:
1040:
notability of railway stations is circular reasoning. It's impossible to square with the
1046:
888:
836:
820:
653:
549:
479:
409:
347:
307:
1041:
1016:
991:
931:
832:
828:
816:
783:
729:
636:
598:
564:
526:
392:
369:
199:
1020:
974:
953:
859:
840:
802:
737:
733:
617:
613:
578:
493:
464:
450:
431:
373:
321:
290:
266:
246:
225:
203:
202:
of this station. Therefore it is not a suitable subject for a standalone article.
110:
824:
691:
342:
visited by the hundreds of editors who edit thousands of pages; that's the true
195:
417:
365:
947:
927:
795:
779:
760:
632:
522:
487:
388:
723:
sources can't verify notability. Primary sources are fine for verifying
372:
shouldn't apply to standalone articles on light rail & tram stops.
669:
as a railway station per longstanding consensus and precedent. --
1083:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
990:
Inherent notability to begin with, and GNG are met adequately.
690:
I have undone what is is a questionable closure by a new user.
597:
reports and various planning committee reports to not exist.--
387:
the stations would turn the status to become just stops.
839:. Fame or importance has nothing to do with notability.--
106:
102:
98:
170:
577:
Notability that can't be verified is non-notability.
263:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1097:). No further edits should be made to this page.
471:verifiable. If notability can't be verified by
243:list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions
184:
8:
261:Note: This debate has been included in the
241:Note: This debate has been included in the
260:
240:
1045:found to be notable at some other AfD.
815:What you have said is not inline with
289:and the affected standalones deleted.
914:in the Train project page notability
7:
360:The subject of this article isn't a
759:The station is the subject of the
24:
1015:per long-standing consensus and
732:and primary sources instead of
287:River Line (New Jersey Transit)
222:River Line (New Jersey Transit)
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
1074:14:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
1055:06:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
1029:02:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
1008:14:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
983:20:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
962:11:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
936:16:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
897:15:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
868:09:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
849:02:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
811:16:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
788:16:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
746:07:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
718:06:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
700:03:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
679:11:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
662:07:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
641:13:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
626:08:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
607:06:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
587:06:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
573:05:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
556:21:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
531:13:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
502:06:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
467:also mean that notability is
459:17:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
440:17:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
426:15:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
397:12:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
382:17:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
356:14:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
330:17:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
316:14:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
299:21:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
275:20:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
255:20:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
234:19:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
212:18:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
73:Roebling (River Line station)
65:Roebling (River Line station)
59:18:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
686:Based on the discussion at
1114:
368:. I see no reason why the
1086:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
1005:
48:The result was
992:
277:
257:
1105:
1088:
1004:
1001:
998:
995:
951:
799:
491:
483:
189:
188:
174:
126:
114:
96:
34:
1113:
1112:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1095:deletion review
1084:
1002:
999:
996:
993:
945:
907:WP:RAILOUTCOMES
793:
485:
477:
131:
122:
87:
71:
68:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1111:
1109:
1100:
1099:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1031:
1010:
985:
967:
966:
965:
964:
939:
938:
899:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
872:
871:
870:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
761:entire chapter
757:
754:
702:
681:
664:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
591:
590:
589:
558:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
444:
443:
442:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
279:
278:
258:
237:
236:
194:No references
192:
191:
128:
67:
62:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1110:
1098:
1096:
1092:
1087:
1081:
1080:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1062:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1032:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1011:
1009:
1006:
989:
986:
984:
980:
976:
972:
969:
968:
963:
959:
955:
949:
943:
942:
941:
940:
937:
933:
929:
925:
921:
917:
912:
908:
903:
900:
898:
894:
890:
886:
883:
882:
869:
865:
861:
857:
852:
851:
850:
846:
842:
838:
834:
830:
826:
822:
818:
814:
813:
812:
808:
804:
797:
791:
790:
789:
785:
781:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
762:
758:
755:
752:
751:
749:
748:
747:
743:
739:
735:
731:
726:
721:
720:
719:
715:
711:
710:Pi.1415926535
706:
703:
701:
697:
693:
689:
685:
682:
680:
676:
672:
668:
665:
663:
659:
655:
651:
648:
642:
638:
634:
629:
628:
627:
623:
619:
615:
610:
609:
608:
604:
600:
595:
592:
588:
584:
580:
576:
575:
574:
570:
566:
562:
559:
557:
554:
551:
547:
543:
540:
539:
532:
528:
524:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
505:
504:
503:
499:
495:
489:
481:
474:
470:
466:
462:
461:
460:
456:
452:
448:
445:
441:
437:
433:
429:
428:
427:
423:
419:
415:
411:
407:
404:
398:
394:
390:
385:
384:
383:
379:
375:
371:
367:
363:
359:
358:
357:
353:
349:
345:
344:WP:CONLIMITED
340:
337:
331:
327:
323:
319:
318:
317:
313:
309:
305:
302:
301:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
281:
280:
276:
272:
268:
264:
259:
256:
252:
248:
244:
239:
238:
235:
231:
227:
223:
219:
216:
215:
214:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
187:
183:
180:
177:
173:
169:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
137:
134:
133:Find sources:
129:
125:
121:
118:
112:
108:
104:
100:
95:
91:
86:
82:
78:
74:
70:
69:
66:
63:
61:
60:
57:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1085:
1082:
1060:
1037:
1033:
1012:
987:
970:
901:
884:
855:
724:
704:
683:
666:
649:
593:
560:
545:
541:
472:
468:
465:Gare du Nord
446:
405:
361:
338:
303:
282:
217:
198:the general
193:
181:
175:
167:
160:
154:
148:
142:
132:
119:
49:
47:
31:
28:
473:independent
158:free images
1066:Necrothesp
920:WP:GEOFEAT
911:WP:STATION
856:standalone
671:Necrothesp
546:tram stops
418:User:DanTD
414:River Line
366:this photo
200:notability
54:j⚛e decker
1091:talk page
1047:bobrayner
889:Thryduulf
654:MikeM2011
550:Mackensen
480:Bobrayner
410:oknazevad
348:oknazevad
308:oknazevad
267:• Gene93k
247:• Gene93k
37:talk page
1093:or in a
1038:inherent
599:Oakshade
565:Alansohn
117:View log
39:or in a
1034:Comment
1021:Antigng
975:Mjroots
954:AadaamS
902:Comment
860:AadaamS
841:Antigng
837:WP:WHYN
835:. See
821:WP:NPOV
803:AadaamS
738:AadaamS
725:content
684:comment
618:AadaamS
579:AadaamS
494:AadaamS
451:G-13114
432:AadaamS
374:AadaamS
362:station
322:AadaamS
291:AadaamS
283:Comment
226:AadaamS
218:Comment
204:AadaamS
164:WP refs
152:scholar
90:protect
85:history
1017:WP:GNG
833:WP:NOT
829:WP:NOR
817:WP:GNG
730:WP:SPS
692:Mangoe
688:WT:TWP
553:(talk)
469:easily
408:, per
370:WP:GNG
196:verify
136:Google
94:delete
924:there
916:essay
734:WP:RS
614:WP:RS
179:JSTOR
140:books
124:Stats
111:views
103:watch
99:links
16:<
1070:talk
1051:talk
1025:talk
1013:Keep
988:Keep
979:talk
971:Keep
958:talk
932:talk
893:talk
885:Keep
864:talk
845:talk
831:and
825:WP:V
807:talk
784:talk
742:talk
714:talk
705:Keep
696:talk
675:talk
667:Keep
658:talk
650:Keep
637:talk
622:talk
603:talk
594:Keep
583:talk
569:talk
561:Keep
542:Keep
527:talk
498:talk
484:and
455:talk
447:Keep
436:talk
422:talk
406:Keep
393:talk
378:talk
352:talk
339:Keep
326:talk
312:talk
304:Note
295:talk
271:talk
251:talk
230:talk
208:talk
172:FENS
146:news
107:logs
81:talk
77:edit
50:keep
1061:are
1042:GNG
1003:ski
997:orr
948:Z22
944:Hi
928:Z22
796:Z22
792:Hi
780:Z22
633:Z22
523:Z22
488:Z22
424:)
389:Z22
186:TWL
115:– (
1072:)
1053:)
1027:)
1019:--
981:)
960:)
934:)
926:.
895:)
866:)
847:)
827:,
823:,
809:)
786:)
744:)
716:)
698:)
677:)
660:)
639:)
624:)
605:)
585:)
571:)
529:)
500:)
492:?
457:)
438:)
395:)
380:)
354:)
346:.
328:)
314:)
297:)
273:)
265:.
253:)
245:.
232:)
224:.
210:)
166:)
109:|
105:|
101:|
97:|
92:|
88:|
83:|
79:|
52:.
1068:(
1049:(
1023:(
1000:u
994:K
977:(
956:(
950::
946:@
930:(
891:(
862:(
843:(
805:(
798::
794:@
782:(
740:(
712:(
694:(
673:(
656:(
635:(
620:(
601:(
581:(
567:(
525:(
496:(
490::
486:@
482::
478:@
453:(
434:(
420:(
391:(
376:(
350:(
324:(
310:(
293:(
269:(
249:(
228:(
206:(
190:)
182:·
176:·
168:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
143:·
138:(
130:(
127:)
120:·
113:)
75:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.