Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional rapid transit 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. postdlf (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional rapid transit stations[edit]

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

Fails WP:CSC. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination quite fails to explain and justify itself (a classic WP:VAGUEWAVE). There are entire books about fictional railways such as Transport in British Fiction, The Railroad in Literature, The Railroad in American Fiction, and plenty of notable fictional stations such as Walford East, Titfield and platform 9 3/4. Andrew D. (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal. The fact that none of these stations has a standalone article should tell you something. Lists are generally of notable things. This is almost all trivia, other than maybe Hobbs End (mentioned in List of London Underground-related fiction). Also, this is for rapid transit, not railroad stations. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:SALAT, WP:CSC and WP:LSC. Per WP:CSC, every entry in the list is supposed to meet the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. None do. The Dissident Aggressor 15:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly meets WP:CSC point 2 (the other two acronym cited above are just to different places on the same page, but this is the only relevant part making the comment a disingenuous attempt to discredit the list at best), clearly verifiable, this list serves to collate as a common topic the entries that would not merit inclusion in the main articles about the system but which are nevertheless encyclopaedic. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that the topic as a whole meets wp:gng or wp:listn, Andrew's sources discusses railroads but not rapid transit while Thryduulf doesn't discuss the sourcing and original research problems such a list contains. Pokerkiller (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm, yes I did mention the sourcing - "easily verifiable". Almost everything on here will be easily verifiable and the few things that are not can be removed, it is not a requirement that everything be immediately verified just verifiable. As for the other points, this is simply a list that collates elements from elsewhere that are not individually notable and would be excessively long in the main article about rapid transit so it has been spun out to be a separate list as is standard across Wikipedia. Please do not conflate not liking the existence of an article with there being a reason to delete that article. Thryduulf (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no problem with this article as long as everything on it is sourced (which most of them are merely by referencing the film or show they featured in given that broadcast media is a source in its own right - it doesn't require further sourcing). -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2015 (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.