Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowes 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crowes railway station[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This individual station seems to lack notability. No references in the article, and even the content currently in the article claims that it was a very rarely used station. Perhaps it should be merged into Crowes railway line? – numbermaniac 04:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 04:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 04:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with redirect. Fleet Lists (talk) 04:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Numbermaniac and Fleet Lists as an obvious alternative to deletionKeep per Oakshade who has demonstrated there are independent sources available on the station and the tendency to keep mainline stations which are not halts. Deus et lex (talk) 05:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the move to delete the article. The station is noteworthy as having been the southern-most railway station on the Australian mainland; for being a terminus station on one of the four (or five) noteworthy Victorian Railways' Narrow-gauge lines; and for having the last 50 metres or so of track replicated to abut the still-in-situe buffer stop. There is plenty more content that could be added to this article, which is something I might attempt soon. Supt. of Printing (talk) 06:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- Supt. of Printing, can you show us any sources (offline or online) which discuss the station in detail? Happy to reconsider the !vote if you can show us that they exist. Deus et lex (talk) 10:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This was an actual mainline rail station, not to mention a line terminus station, and longstanding precedent is we keep rail station articles. In this case there are found detailed coverage of the origins and decisions to build this station as well as physical details of the station itself and even origin of the station name. [1][2][3][4]. This government report goes into great detail for service to the station plus more details of the station itself. Oakshade (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - thank you, I have changed my !vote to Keep in light of these sources. Deus et lex (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources has been found by Darkshade to verify the station existed with enough detail to write an article. Jumpytoo Talk 20:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darkshade?... I actually like it. Oakshade (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2021 (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.