Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madura 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) LlamaAl (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Madura Station[edit]

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

In Australian English, a "station" - see Station (Australian agriculture) - refers to a large pastoral area business, typically one where beef cattle are raised for market, and some stations cover more area than that of small European nations. Some small stations are historically notable, despite their size; some stations are notable because of their size. It would appear to me that there is no indication of notability of this particular station. It's just a farm business, and does not pass the tests for Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Shirt58 (talk) 10:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Third largest sheep station in Australia (and most likely the world) also most likely historically significant, if it's not notable you best start nominating the rest of the list for deletion. Here's a link for you to get busy with - List of ranches and stations Hughesdarren (talk) 11:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, your comment is not a valid argumentation as per WP:ALLORNOTHING and so it will be ignored by the admins. Please, provide independent sources for the aforementioned claims about historical significance of the station. Toffanin (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Second largest station (ranch) in a country of extremely large stations is significant. It does seem to pass WP:N as at least one in-depth Sydney Mail (now part of The Sydney Morning Herald) source was found after a brief search. [1] --Oakshade (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant station, well-sourced article. No basis in policy on which to delete. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the largest sheep stations in Australia with a 137 year history. This article has been developed with further sources since nomination to demonstate that it surpasses the notability threshold and I'm sure there's a wealth of further information on this pastoral lease in dusty public archives that could be added.--Melburnian (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article contains much trivia. Just because something was in the newspaper doesn't mean that it's sufficiently notable for an encyclopaedia. If we keep the article, we might consider pruning it a bit. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced article about a subject that is clearly notable, as is shown by the large amount of third party coverage over a sustained length of time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - as the starter of the 'List of Pastoral Leases...' project, the excellent expansion of the articles by the editor on stations in Western Australia has gone relatively un-noticed. Considering the power of the pastoral industry in australia in the past, the historical relics of the pastoral industry are in themselves all notable, each one. If one considers the precedent issues and arguments of the Australian places project criteria of notability for named places, and of the trains project criteria of notability of railway stations, the issue of stations/ranches - should be firmly established as notable. In Australian terms - stations/pastoral leases - specially due to their context in land management terms, are of significance due to their size and their identification within the landscape they are a hell of a lot more significant than a 2 house town with a name, or a disused railway station - a 'marker' of land use, land condition, and ecological status of parts of western australia. In short, what The Drovers Wife above says. sats 00:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as a Western Australian, who took one of the photographs selected by the author to illustrate the article, I think that it is an interesting one, about a subject that's notable, at the very least because of its size, longevity, and extreme isolation. I agree that the article needs a bit of pruning - I would omit the paragraphs about the floods and fires, but the comments about drought should be left in, as should most of the other material. Bahnfrend (talk) 04:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As outlined by the previous editors this article (altough containing some superflous material) provides sufficient independent references to justify its notability. Dan arndt (talk) 08:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though not to encourage stubs Crusoe8181 (talk) 08:33, 27 February 2013 (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.