Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beuel Rathaus (SWB)

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. Despite having originally !voted in this AfD before the sock issues arose, I'm WP:BOLDly closing this per the "any reasonable administrator" provision of WP:INVOLVED. Only two articles (which don't include the 'main' nominated one) remain after the violation-of-block ones bite the G5 dust, and even those were created by a sock of the since-indef'd master account. Per WP:DENY, those are being deleted, and then I will create afresh the lot as redirects per the consensus prior to the policy violations being discovered. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beuel Rathaus (SWB)[edit]

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

Short article about a train stop with no sources or indication of significance -- BigPimpinBrah (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

include in the nomination:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to articles most of these are tram stops not train stops. (Some such as Vilich-Müldorf (SWB) are rail stations.) It would probably be sufficient to merge them into tables or diagram in Bonn Stadtbahn#Lines describing the various routes/lines, but this would be better done by an editor with knowledge of the transport system. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy close~~; none of the "also included" articles are tagged for deletion. Either they need to be removed and this devoted only to the nominated article, or the whole thing needs to be closed and re-opened. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- They're all part of the same transit system and were all created within the past week by the same user, why bother with a separate afd for each? --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 05:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While it may be appropriate to discuss them in aggregate, User:BigPimpinBrah, you have to label all of them for AFD. Please see WP:BUNDLE for the directions. The notice must be placed on each article, or it is not a valid AFD. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 09:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As all but one were now tagged, I have tagged the remaining one and withdrawn my objection on that basis. It is my opinion, seeing as these all appear to be stops on a light rail line, that they should all ~~redirect~~ to Bonn Stadtbahn. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. How do otherwise non-notable s-bahn stops deserve a standalone article? 78.105.28.140 (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect A bunch of unsourced stubs regarding stations that don't meet WP:GNG. Also see Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations)#Stations, this is clearly a case of: If some source material is available, but is insufficient for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the subject under the article for its parent locality or parent company. If no source material, or only directory-type information (location, function, name, address) can be provided, the subject may not merit mention at all. And yes, I know that is simply an essay and not policy, but it is an interpretation of WP:GNG in circumstances just like this. The info (if sourced) would however merit inclusion in the Bonn Stadtbahn articles though. Liamdavies (talk) 12:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of these were created in violation of a block, so I have tagged those with {{db-g5}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:50, 12 November 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.