Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shottle 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. - Philippe 21:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shottle railway station[edit]

Written by people connected to the railway, no refs or citations, and not a notable station BG 7 17:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Railway station articles are not excluded from Wikipedia because they are not notable. See Wikipedia:Notability_(Places_and_transportation)#Commuter_rail_services. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the station isn't even open, isn't likely to be before 2012, and has no refs, other than from the article's authors book, which isn't reffed at the moment. I can't even verify that as I have seen a copy nowhere.

Open yet is beside the point. The station used to be open (a fact an editor removed just before the AfD nomination). Google searches indicate coverage for the old station. Whatever happens with the reopening effort, notability does not expire. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BG 7 17:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at least until it's actually open. The lack of refs, and the fact that it hasn't established notability yet would seem to indicate that there's not any reason to keep it.

Note: The link provided above by User:Cobaltbluetony to the policy about the notability of railway stations indicates 1) it's still in the proposed phase and 2) it states that "...many (but not all) of the stations are notable..." I think this fits under the "not all" portion. CredoFromStart ^talk 18:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question is it possible it's operating/being discussed under another name? I ask because I'd expect even a proposed railway station to have more than 9 ghits. That seems unbelievably low. I think there may be more that we're missing which could give context. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no way. Try the official websites, www.e-v-r.com and www.evra.org.uk. And notice the staion is between Idridgehay (the current terminus) and Duffield, and the "Dash to Duffield is what is being advertised. It won't be open until that is open, and after that at that! (sorry! :P)

BG 7 18:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The historical station is notable, and its existence is attested by Kelly's Directory of the Counties of Derby, Notts, Leicester and Rutland, pub. London (May, 1891) - pp.234-235. An article is warranted now, even though the station has not yet been reopened, because the historical station is notable. --Eastmain (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain and Cobaltbluetony. Rail stations are notable and, yes, stations that used to be open. Notability is not temporary. --Oakshade (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Eastmain said, historical stations deserve articles. (There are entire categories full of such articles.) It would be helpful if someone edited the article to give readers a clue what country the station is in, though. Fg2 (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes the "as notable than Hallingskeid which has an entry in several paper encyclopedias" test. Railway stations are among the kinds of subject which encyclopedias traditionally cover, so Wikipedia should hold a lenient standard to notability here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the practice seems to have developed of having articles on all railway stations. Whether that was a wise policy, I am not certain, but that is what we have. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Since my original unbiased penning of the article about the station and its current situation it has been edited to become nothing more than a drum banging exercise for a minor commercial concern. I therefore feel that the article should be deleted or the large number of references to the company removed. --Skeletor2000 (talk) 18:06, 11 April 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.