Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midlunga railway station

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Consensus against deletion. There is a consensus that deletion of the individual article is not appropriate here, but no consensus between keep, merge and redirect. A discussion that considers all the stations on the line as a set seems more likely to gain consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

Midlunga railway station[edit]

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

Midlunga railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The arcticle Midlunga railway station is nominated For Deletion because of Violating The Wikipedia Notability Guideline WP:GNG. There is No information Indicating that the subject of this article in notable in any way, there are also only 2 sources for it one which is completely unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulGamerBoy360 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment None of the two keep-voters responded to the nomination statement about the failing of GNG; I did research and only found two mediumly significant coverage about the subject. As Garuda3's statement is WP:OTHERSTUFF, the two keep-voters' votes are invalid. Timothytyy (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    “two mediumly significant coverage” sounds to me like a GNG pass. Garuda3 (talk) 08:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep there's this [1] about a sign mixup, seems to be a RS. not the greatest, but seems ok. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the sourcing is pretty bad, it still exists, so WP:V is satisfied. The main reason I'm voting to keep is that I agree with Garuda that deleting random stations in the middle of lines while disregarding the other stations creates significant navigational issues that creates more problems than it solves. If the other stations on the line are notable, then this station should also be kept regardless of GNG passing for navigational/consistency purposes. And if most of the stations on the line fail GNG, then the nomination should deal with all of them en masse. Jumpytoo Talk 23:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You should start a N discussion if you believe it should be kept because of "navigational purposes". I encountered similar situations: un-redirecting stations but then got redirected again. So yeah, wish this article good luck. Timothytyy (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Timothytyy himself has said he has found two SIGCOV articles regarding the subject. This gives rise to a presumption of notability under GNG. Jack4576 (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No the reason I said "mediumly" because they aren't techincally talking about the subject, the articles are here: 1 (the one Oaktree b provided), 2. Please comment on these sources, Jumpytoo and Jack4576. Timothytyy (talk) 02:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is not the main focus of those articles but the mentions are sufficient enough to be demonstrative of notability to Wikipedians in the local area Jack4576 (talk) 08:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The second source is definitely not SIGCOV, as it is only mentioned once in the whole article! According to GNG, SIGCOV is more than a trivial mention. Also for source 1 it is only the sign that has the name of the subject, not providing SIGCOV for it. Timothytyy (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SIGCOV generates a presumption as to notability, it is not a requirement for notability.
I agree SIGCOV may have not been met here. Still think it is notable though for reasons stated by others in this thread. Jack4576 (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're misinterpreting WP:SIGCOV. It's true that it only creates a presumption of notability, but only if a topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Because this article doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV and thus there isn't a presumption of notability, I am voting Delete. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 09:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also fine with Redirect in this situation, as that seems to be where the votes are going. The RfC on train station notability makes it pretty clear that train stations must meet WP:GNG, although it appears that some editors don't accept that. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. Available sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NTRAINSTATION is explicit that GNG must be met. A news story that a sign for one station was replaced with one for Midlunga fails SIGCOV and fails NOTNEWS, and a passing mention of a crash that "happened near Midlung station" is the very definition of "trivial". JoelleJay (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect is also fine. JoelleJay (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Outer Harbor railway line. No SIGCOV, one very trivial mention and an article about a sign mixup. "Navigational purposes" is a very weak argument for keeping; we don't need 15 stubs about stations along one suburban Metro line when one table in the main article would serve the purpose just as well. Some of the stations look notable, but the others, including this one, are definitely better off redirected. AryKun (talk) 04:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Leaving some articles and deleting others would leave Wikipedia in a inconsistent state. You say it’s a “very weak argument for keeping” but I don’t see any reason for deleting this article put forward by yourself. Garuda3 (talk) 08:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Their redirect reason is WP:DEL-REASON #8. Your reason to keep has no basis in policy or guidelines... JoelleJay (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Wikipedia generally has a general practice in relation to AfDs that substantive stations on metropolitan suburban railway systems (and I'm not talking about "halts" without platforms, or stations that temporarily existed for a time etc., I'm talking about regular stations with regular services) can have their own article, because putting the information together all on the line page would take up too much room. In Australia, every single suburban station within a capital city and which is served by suburban trains has its own article and the consensus has been to keep them all, even though some have less information than others. There is a notability essay on this topic: Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations). This is not just "other stuff exists" and something that ignores notability and sources, the fact is that there are substantial offline sources available about the history of railway lines and stations, but a lot of them are found offilne in public libraries, State archives and railway-specific publications (like Australian Railway History). I don't live in SA so I wouldn't be able to access those types of materials, but they do exist. This AfD should not try to set some sort of precedent for deleting an article (and then use that precedent to delete other ones) unless the nominator can show that those offline information sources have been reviewed and can positively show that no such information on this particular station exists. I think the point raised by other users about navigation is also important - other users have set up navigation boxes that include the stations, and it would require significant work to redo them all with some merged and some non-merged articles. It takes time to put a well sourced article together on a place like this due to the difficulty of finding sources - so give people the benefit of the doubt and don't merge this. Deus et lex (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - there is a history of the Port Adelaide line here [2] - I can't see the book to tell if it includes material on Midlunga or not. At 112 pages long, the book is likely to include information on stations. Deus et lex (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a very well-attended RfC on train station notability that produced a strong consensus that railway lines must meet GNG, overriding any precedent of inherent or presumptive notability from earlier practices. JoelleJay (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Stations, not lines, but otherwise your comment is correct (as the one who started the RfC in question). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - The RfC was in 2019, not last year. I will say that despite the RfC, the practice in AfDs has consistently been to keep pages even where there has been limited information. The practice is different for halts or platformless stations, but this is not one, it has a regular suburban service. You haven't addressed my comment (which is also noted in the page I linked above) that there are extensive offline sources about railway stations, including those in Australia, I've already suggested one book on the line itself that should include some information on this particular station (at 112 pages long the book would need to - I don't have access to it so I can't check). There are also likely to be newspaper sources (available in the State Library of South Australia where I do not live, so I can't check). I've included information on a petition about the platforms and information on when they appeared in the suburban map and timetable in the 1950s. Deus et lex (talk) 08:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive_76#Notability of train stations. Don't call me a liar without doing your homework. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 11:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - even if it was last year, my other points still stand. Deus et lex (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are now 8 sources in the article - with that having been done, WP:GNG should now be met, so there shouldn't be a notability issue here. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 21:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    8 sources that do not provide more than a passing mention does not equal GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Outer Harbor railway line. There is a clear lacking of SIGCOV, as only barebones information is apparently available about this station. Redirecting would still be preferable to deletion, however. The "you can't delete/merge/redirect one station without assessing them all at once" is a nonsense argument explicitly overruled by the RfC from last year, so I'm really getting tired of people trotting it out as an excuse to keep everything. If you can't make an argument to keep this station, ignoring anything about all others, then you haven't made a valid argument for retention. The community has made its viewpoints clear at a well-attended RfC which cannot be overruled by a few editors in one AfD. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - it's not a "nonsense" argument, as a number of users have said already here, there are clear and good reasons for retaining the page, absent someone making it clear there aren't offline sources available to justify its notability. Wikipedia permits stub pages that are not filled out while sources can be found, of which this is one. Deus et lex (talk) 08:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It's the job of the people voting keep to show that there are some sources that help the article meet GNG: you cannot expect people to go to Australia and check every book on the history of railways before voting delete. This is a stub page that could be merged into Outer Harbor railway line with zero issue, because there is nothing significant about it other than the fact that it exists in said place. AryKun (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a recurring theme when a train station ends up at AfD: "Oh, you want to delete this? Prove there's a 0% chance there's any sources in the entire globe or else you can't delete it". The goal is to make it impossible to ever delete anything. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge limited sourced basic info into Outer Harbor railway line. Fails GNG for notability but their looks to be enough info for a merge into the line article. Looking at sources in the article and above, they are mentions, nothing that meets SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Even if two sources are found can squeek by GNG, this does not mean there must be an article and in this case the content is much better covered in the target article.  // Timothy :: talk  05:32, 21 May 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Midlunga_railway_station&oldid=1157271267"