Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seaholme railway station, Melbourne

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 per WP:SNOW --JForget 00:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seaholme railway station, Melbourne[edit]

Delete fails notability, I see no evidence that this railway station has received non-trivial coverage by independent third party publications. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Few railway stations are going to have received non-trivial coverage by independent publications. Yes, they'll have been covered by associated public transport sites (in this case [1]) and trivially (in this case [2]).If strict notability was applied to railway stations most of them would be deleted! Nk.sheridan Talk 23:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see many of the stations linked from List of London Underground stations strictly satisfying notability. Unless coverage by associated public transport sites and trivial coverage from media sources (as regards muggings, etc.!) are used. I've posted a quick note on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Stations regarding this AfD to get some input regarding notability of stations. cheers, Nk.sheridan Talk 23:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most Victorian railway stations have had histories of them published in the Newsrail railway magazine, or as part of dedicated books on the railway lines they are a part of. The issue is people go making stubs on train stations but never bother digging up the history from published sources. Wongm (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Railway stations, airports, ports, etc. are inherently notable due to their role as centres of public transportation. Pburka (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pburka and Wongm. Mackensen (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per all above. Additionally, just by virtue of being a publicly funded rail station, by law, extensive government documents of proposals, budgets and administration exist. --Oakshade (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Railway stations are notable enough in their own right to have an article. Mjroots (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia convention, if not policy, has been to retain all of these railway station entries. You would have a lot of accompanying deletion candidates if this one bit the dust. The challenge is to enhance the content Murtoa (talk) 06:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Long-standing precedent to keep these - and for good reason - there's good verifiable sources on all of them. Rebecca (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Railway stations are inherently notable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I don't subscribe to the concept of inherent notability. However, although the usual Books, Scholar, and News searches were somewhat disappointing, this station does seem to have attracted some independent attention in reliable web sources, as evidenced by many of the results in this PDF search. Hence, I think it just scrapes past WP:N, and there is evidence of potential to satisfy WP:V. Jakew (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per User:Oakshade above. There is also massive precedent that all verifiable railway stations are notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Question: It is abundantly apparent that the consensus is to retain this article. May I ask why we make such an extraodinary exception for a railway station? WP:OTHERSTUFF is routinely deleted for less. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:26, 22 May 2008 (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.