Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobadilla 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 keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bobadilla railway station

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

Non-notable rail station in small town. As per WP:STATION, does not pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historically important in understanding how the contruction of the line was used and is still used and connected to the surrounding areas, maybe read more on it before deleting Onel5969, without discussing first seems illogical, I have added a citation as there was indeed none, which is why you deleted the article (according to the talk section of the article). This station forms part of the Algeciras-Bobadilla railway line and is historically connected to the Algeciras Gibraltar Railway Company --Rockysantos (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per wp:station "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. " It seems like it's up to editorial judgement... I'll !vote for a separate article if it grows beyond a stub, otherwise a merge is fine by me MrBrug (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article is capable of being expanded from sources in the Spanish Wikipedia article. Needing improvement is never a reason for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a real mainline station. As noted above, Spanish WP has a host of coverage, generally from government sources. As with most stations this is expected. WP wisely decided long ago rail stations are worthy of articles and this prevents the exhausting fleshing out of the notability of the tens of thousands of such articles when editors time can and should be better spent improving existing articles and created new ones of worthy topics. --Oakshade (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Nördic Nightfury 16:22, 5 June 2017 (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.