Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denistone East railway station, Sydney

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. -- RyRy (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denistone East railway station, Sydney[edit]

Delete as per other articles Past main AfD Bidgee (talk) 11:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This is one of the stations part of North West Metro which has been officially announced and there are official sources supporting their existence and planning. This is unlike the other ones where the only source is SMH, and never confirmed officially on whether they will be built or not. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a different situation to the others: the others were a loose blueprint for a line which may or may not happen, and which may or may not have had stations there. The government has actually committed to building this line, though; this station will be built, and it's useful to have an article containing the information that's known about it. That's why I'm voting keep here, where I voted strong delete on those. Rebecca (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The "Past main AfD" does not apply as this is the subject of secondary sources (mostly government) and even as "planned" it's notable. --Oakshade (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep all future railway stations that are to be built are notable!^MY♥_INchile 19:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now keep. Was Delete There are no references, so fails WP:N as there are no secondary sources to support the article. Assize (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, no. The policy requires that sources exist, not that they be in the article at the time. We don't delete articles on notable topics because the current text sucks. There's clearly plenty of sources on this: it's probably the most major public transport extension announced in Australia over the next decade or so, so between official sources and press coverage, there's plenty of material, both on the line and its stations. Rebecca (talk) 11:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rebecca's interpretation above is entirely correct. The sources merely have to exist for future improvement. We delete if no future improvement is possible. Orderinchaos 09:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: From WP:N, which you refer to above, "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable.". Hopefully this article can be improved so that we DO have reliable sources to establish its notability. - DigitalC (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interesting interpretation. But what about "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability." in WP:N. If there are sources, why not add them, and I'd go for a keep. Assize (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just by virtue of being a publicly funded rail station, by law, extensive government documents of proposals, budgets and administration exist. These kind of sources aren't always immediately available through internet hyperlinks. --Oakshade (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for a hyperlink. A paper reference is fine. The information in the article must have come somewhere, otherwise it is on par with a hoax or crystalball. I suspect it is no more than a passing mention in a press release but at least that could be cited and that would warrant a keep. Assize (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But resources exist, by law. Just because you don't see them doesn't mean they don't and it's a hoax. --Oakshade (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What "law" says they must exist as I'm not aware of an Australian law that requires that. This is now sounding Original Research if you're relying on the original government documents. I've done a search for this proposed station and turned up zip. Under WP:Deletion, that on the face of it warrants a deletion. Surely this AfD is about improving the article so that somebody reading about this station be should be able to verify a reference somewhere if they want to. The argument for keep so far is "there really are bunyips, I can't show you one, but it really must be there". Assize (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, your argument amounts to "the article currently sucks, so I'm voting delete". And you're being told "hang on, there's actually plenty of sources for this, should someone bother to include them" - which is plenty enough to make it notable per Wikipedia policy. It's a major government project, for gods sake. Rebecca (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I'm not voting delete because the article "sucks". I couldn't care whether it is a stub or badly written. I'm simply saying this is an objective encyclopedia and references are necessary. I don't care whether they are paper or hyperlinks. I usually argue keep if there is some sort of reference. Assize (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assize, Google (or whatever search engine you used) doesn't mean everything and does not justify something's existence. Why do you need to go online to search for it when it's existence is stated clearly in the article North West Metro and has been sourced for that matter? I know the source isn't in the station's article itself, but as quoted above, "we don't delete articles on notable topics because the current text sucks." For your convenience, here's one place you could find out about it's existence. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 04:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

have added that reference to the article Murtoa (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Your research skills are much better than mine. Much appreciated. Assize (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assize, In Australia, that "law" of government disclosure is the Freedom of Information Act 1982. As you seem Australian, I'm surprised you never heard of it. In New South Wales (the state that's funding this project), the more specific state law is the Freedom of Information Act 1989. --Oakshade (talk) 04:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Quite simply, one can't spend oodles of taxpayers' money without any paper trail. Often governments will get a report prepared on something as they are not experts on the particular area, so will need expert advice on structural and technical possibilities and their likely costs. Additionally, in order for companies to tender in order to build the stations, a certain amount of information is made available in tender briefs. This is public infrastructure as well, so not only would there be the minimum to comply with the law but also a certain amount of advertising by the Government to say "look what we're doing for your community" and, closer to the time, more specific information on usability. Furthermore, once a few years go past, inevitably journals focussed on public works and/or railways mention anything that needs to be mentioned. So no shortage of possible documentation, and you will pretty much never have a station (especially a new one) without it. Orderinchaos 09:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Older Australians will remember the sports grant affair in which the record of grants was kept on a whiteboard. Politicans can and do regularly make announcements on the fly without reports. The Freedom of Information Act does not mandate that records must be kept of every major capital announcement. It determines what information that exists can be released. It doesn't mean that information does exist. All this debate, when simply a reference could have been added to make the topic notable. Assize (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part II of both the federal and state acts mandate the publication of all government affairs. If they didn't require that, the acts would be close to useless. --Oakshade (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they must publish a statement of affairs, not document their affairs. Some commentators say that the Acts are useless as a result. Assize (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The acts are much more complex than that. All discussions of government policy, all contracts, all details, and all costs must be published. --Oakshade (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plainly notable, and reliable sources exist. Current state of the article is not a justification for deletion. Orderinchaos 09:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject of secondary coverage. Would be interested to see where the information for the stuff in the infobox (number of platforms, etc) is though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:39, 25 July 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.