Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finley Pioneer Rail Committee

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. article has already been redirected to what appears to meet consensus... Tawker (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finley Pioneer Rail Committee[edit]

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

The committee is not notable. The railway station precint, perhaps is. It is State Heritage Listed. Nothing here in this article related to the station and surrounds that is worth keeping. Start over with new subject. One incoming link from Finley, New South Wales. Redirect? Bleakcomb (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make sense to rename the article to Finley Pioneer Railway Station and remove mention of the committee? It is after all just a stub at this point. Hopefully someone in or near Finley can add material to the article. n2xjk (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why did you not add some references? They are easy to find. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I boldly moved it, per N2xyk's suggestion above, to title "Finley Pioneer Railway Station", which is more clearly wikipedia-notable, as it is a state-designated historic site apparently. N2xyk was the creator of the article. And I reworded it, still mentioning the committee that operates it, which can of course be mentioned. Frankly, why this AFD at all? It would be better to raise a suggestion at the Talk page about moving the article (or open a requested move at the Talk page, not engage dozens or more scattered Wikipedians into reviewing a deletion request. --do ncr am 01:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the redirect is appropriate. LibStar (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect--Ciofeca (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2014 (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.