Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of New South Wales railway station codes (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Sandstein 07:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of New South Wales railway station codes[edit]

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

This is an unsourced article that fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. At the last AfD in 2008, there were acknowledgements of the lack of sourcing and a suggestion that it be merged with another article but, in the past 7 years, absolutely nothing has happened. Until a recent burst of edit-warring, there have only been 18 edits since the AfD ended. The article is likely well out of date, but you'd never know how out of date it is because of the lack of references. AussieLegend (✉) 15:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree – it is not referenced. In addition, it is non-notable: this is a list of internally-significant abbreviations used by the NSW railways. I cannot think of a situation in which a reader would want to see how every station in NSW, past and present, was expressed as a three-letter acronym in internal railway documents. Editors have previously argued that the abbreviations are used in public timetables. This doesn't prove notability and, in any case, only applies to a tiny minority of the stations – only terminus stations appear in the timetables in this way. Finally, the article fails in its own terms: the 'Sydney Trains' list contains regional stations, and vice versa; both lists contain long-closed stations never served by Sydney Trains or NSW TrainLink. Mqst north (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge. A single citation would make all the difference here. It could be merged into List of NSW TrainLink railway stations and the equivalent Sydney article. It is convenient for a reader seeking this information to have all the codes in one (or two) list articles. But wherever the information ends up, it would be nice to have a source for it. It has been suggested that a source existed in a non-public NSW rail document. Sources don't have to be on-line accessible, but we need some editor to put their hand on the heart and say I saw the document and this information is verifiable from it. I see no problem with the inclusion of closed stations; as I write about history, I would hate to see information about closed stations lost. Kerry (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But we aren't a directory so a list of railway station codes doesn't belong here, regardless if it referenced. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been begging for citations for at least the last 7 years as I noted in my nomination but nothing has happened. If citations haven't been provided by now we're unlikely to see them ever added so what we're left with is an unreferenced directory. There is no way to know how many of the codes are wrong so the article serves no encyclopaedic purpose. As for a merge, we shouldn't be moving unreferenced content to another article. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Its not knowledge-based, just a list of trivial codes of limited use. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry, if the only citation anyone can find is an internal staff document from one of Sydney Trains' predecessor organisations, that speaks volumes as to the non-notability of the information. While it's true sources needn't be published online, they should still be accessible to the public in some way. Also, the suggestion about a merger was made during the 2008 AfD discussion, and that resulted in no action at all. Mqst north (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mqst north. You asked for other people not interested in public transport to come and give their opinion. In particular you appeared to be soliciting input from people who might have other perspectives. I assumed good faith in relation to your request and I have obliged you by giving my opinion. Why then criticise my opinion? Were you in fact only soliciting opinions that coincided with your own (i.e. canvassing)? Kerry (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry, this page is for reasoned discussion about the merits of the deletion nomination. My post that you link to is not related to this deletion nomination; it predates it. Mqst north (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The page is not referenced and well and truely out of date. I may have argued against this on the page itself as just blanking out the data as the proposer did on the page is not the way to go about this. Deleting it will add a maintenance load as all trains stations in NSW including Sydney, have a link to this page in the infobox. I have looked at this page on a number of times over the past few years and even trying to bring it up to date is now impossible.Fleet Lists (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Kerrys' suggestion that be merged with List of NSW TrainLink railway stations and List of Sydney Trains railway stations articles. Cites have now been located for the current stations and will be added to these articles in due course, and this one should the consensus be to retain. Cites may exist for the closed stations, but may require an archival dig which I don't have the time nor inclination to perform.

For the benefit of the editor who resisted my reinstating of the article in its full form, for this deletion to be carried it needed to be in such form. If 99% of the article had been deleted and then a deletion motion carried, it could be argued that it was only on the basis that this deletion had occurred, and be ruled null and void on a technicality with the article reinstated. JCN217 (talk) 05:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage in independent reliable sources. Nothing mergeable because absolutely nothing in the article is referenced. Jenks24 (talk) 07:52, 17 August 2015 (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.