Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Rail Stations

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. Stifle (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham Rail Stations[edit]

A WP:FORK of other station articles. Not much point in the article as this is not a station group (e.g. London station group). Also, not a single source. Created in good faith however. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 21:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per reasons in nomination. Un-necessary, unsourced, forked article... in good faith. --Jza84 | Talk 23:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. I'm not sure what a "station group" is, but I think an article that lists and provides brief details of the railway stations in a major city is worth having. Sources can clearly be added to this article, which is essentially a brief summary of the contents of the sourced articles Birmingham New Street station, Birmingham Snow Hill station and Birmingham Moor Street station. Should be expanded to cover the stations outside of the city centre also (e.g. Tyseley railway station). JulesH (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is already done in List of stations in the West Midlands, another article which shows just how this one has no real use. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 08:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. In that case, it may be best to merge to List of stations in the West Midlands. Makes more sense than deleting this plausible search term. JulesH (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That last list looks great, but it doesn't show how the stations are interconnected, which this article does. If a free map of the routes can be put in the other article, I might be convinced to delete, but right how the fact it's got routes means it's got additional info that shouldn't be deleted. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I follow. Wikipedia isn't a publisher of original thought. This article is effectively a synthesis, not a stand along topic. Sure it's got verifiable content, but just seems to be a list of stations in Birmingham and how they're connected. Not seen anything like it on WP. --Jza84 | Talk 22:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think that's synthesis. It's information that's published, after all, in the network maps on the back of timetables you can pick up in any of the stations described. JulesH (talk) 11:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This might work better in another format like Railroad terminals of Chicago. --NE2 07:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already covered in List of stations in the West Midlands, which is why the article needs to be deleted as it has such a crossover and offers nothing new. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 08:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like a good reason to redirect. --NE2 17:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The content is covered better in the individual articles on each station. It might be converted to a dab page referring to the articles Birmingham New Street station, Birmingham Snow Hill station and Birmingham Moor Street station, but if so it should become "Railway Stations in central Birmingham" to discourage the addition of suburban stations. I am doubtful of the value of including articles on the frequency of services, as these may change with time tables, which change at frequent intervals. IN so far as this duplicates the individual station articles, it is highly undesirable to have this one. It there is a change and one or the other is not updated, WP will be contrdicting itself. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is a valuable article bringing information together like the chicargo one. I know people who have said its good. Newguernsey —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newguernsey (talk • contribs) 14:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambiguation page. Mjroots (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep or merge There was no effort to attempt to preserve this information, in violation of the foundation policy WP:PRESERVE. The editor is a new editor, with only 15 edits. Instead of working with this editor, and explaining to this editor why this article may not meet wikipedia guidelines, the delete editors have instead said with our actions: your contributions are worthless.
Is it any wonder that the media unanimously despises our deletion system? The media calls wikipedians "bullies", "wannabe tin-pot dictators masquerading as humble editors" involved in the "midnight door-knock and the book bonfire". travb (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's a need for articles covering topics at a variety of depths (We don't delete apes just because we have humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and so forth). POVFORK charge seems unsupported (what other article is covering rail stations in birmingham from a different POV?) New article, that it's so far poorly sourced is not a big deal, since it's all easily verifiable (the real criterion). Wily D 14:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - actually it is a rather useful article tying together the three stations. Of course it needs proper sourcing and quite a bit of editorial work. However, that is a separate matter from this deletion discussion and I agree with the suggestion above that what would be desirable would be for someone knowledgeable on the subject to work with the creator to improve the page. Smile a While (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a very useful article for people living in birmingham, it is also useful for train enthusiasts(i am not a train enthusiast, the writer is, i know him) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IXmeXI (talk • contribs) 10:41, 14 January 2009 (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.