Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legionowo 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 09:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legionowo railway station

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

Lack notability. Ok, there's an article on a site run by people fascinated with railway what does not make it eligible for notability (my statment is based on a similar problem at a discussion over Rainbow Dash nomination for deletion. And moreover, I'm from Poland, and Legionowo is a small town and there are only several Polish railway station that have an article in Wikipedia and Legionowo railway st. isn't exepctional in any way. It's a common train stop. Ptok Bentoniczny (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Ptok Bentoniczny (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Nominators for deletion are not allowed to also !vote. This !vote above isn't valid. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I struck out the invalid delete vote from the nominator for deletion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Railway stations are considered inherently notable as indicated in WP:OUTCOMES. It it not healthy for this project to spend hours, days and weeks fleshing out, analyzing and arguing over the inclusion criteria of the thousands of existing rail stations when editors time could be much better spent editing and improving existing articles and creating new ones of notable topics. Also it greatly reduces bad will amongst editors. --Oakshade (talk) 05:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade. Railway stations are considered notable in general based on past experience, and fighting over each individual station is hardly productive. This is especially true for stations in non-English-speaking countries, since it's harder for editors to find sources and they aren't always online. Besides, judging by this comment I wonder if the nominator is trying to make a point. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 07:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- WE have 1000s of articles on railway stations, and I see no reason why this one should not stay. My only problem comes when there are WP:CRYSTAL issues, but that does not apply here.
Keep. This is an encyclopedia, not the Guinness Book of Records or a sensationalist tabloid, so there's no need for article subjects to be exceptional. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's kinda funny you mentioned it... Yes, Wikipedia definetely IS an encyclopedia. And Wikipedia IS NOT a catalogue (at least I hope so) where you put every building ever built. If there are railway station, why you don't write articles about bus stops?? Or maybe you do? If it's an encyclopedia, then Legionowo railway station shouldn't be included at all. Why? It's a train station? Nothing exceptional happened there. No explosions, no assassinations, no catastrophes, no terrorist attacks... So why, why, why would you put a miserable train station in Wikipedia? It makes no sense. Ptok Bentoniczny (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inclusionism Bulwersator (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Railway stations are generally considered to be notable. The fact that most Polish stations don't have articles simply indicates that nobody has written them yet, not that they shouldn't be written. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 6 January 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.