Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special purpose UK railway 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 20:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Special purpose UK railway stations[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)

Previously WP:PRODded. As the article states: "This is a list of UK railway stations that have been constructed or used for a special, notable or unusual purpose." But this is very much subjectively defined, and so inherently fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Examples of special purposes include:

Built to serve a stadium (e.g. Manchester United Football Ground; but not Wembley Stadium)

Built to serve a workplace (e.g. IBM; but not Morris Cowley railway station)

Limited- or no-service, and serving another mode of transport (e.g. Newhaven Marine; but not Teesside Airport)

No access to the public (e.g. Smallbrook Junction)

You may ask: why don't I just add the things I said were missing? Precisely because it's not clear whether they count as "Special purpose". Does the fact that Wembley Stadium station have non-matchday service exclude it, for instance? Since that seems subjective, the article can't help but reflect a particular editor's WP:POV.

I don't see that this can be fixed without splitting the list into more-specific categories (e.g. "UK railway stations built to serve a workplace" or "UK railway stations with limited service"), but it seems that's better-served by categories rather than lists. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 11:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator; a definition of what this list is meant to contain seems to exist. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 20:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 11:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 11:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Categories are inferior to lists as, for one thing, they don't provide for citation and verification. In any case, we don't delete one for the sake of the other – see WP:CLN. Special purpose stations are discussed by this title in works such as Railway Stations: Planning, Design and Management and so the topic passes WP:LISTN. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Davidson, Could you provide the text of how it defines them? If there's a clear definition (that therefore allows other people to add or remove stations from the list based on something other than their POV) I'll happily withdraw my nomination. (As it happens, in its current form this list is poorly cited, though I agree that's not a reason for deletion.)

I should say I'm not suggesting that we should delete this article because I think we should create categories instead: my argument is a stand-alone one that the list shouldn't exist, but that creating categories might be possible if one wanted to retain the information somehow. So I don't think the guideline in WP:NOTDUP applies to the case I'm trying to make. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 11:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BEFORE, researching the topic is the nominator's job. I have notified another editor who is more familiar with such topics and I trust he will have more to say. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Davidson, a WP:BEFORE search with things I have access to (I don't own that book) reveals nothing but this article and mirrors (and unrelated topics, like special-purpose radio stations). I really did try to search for it; I just thought you might be able to help where I'd failed, though of course you are free to decline. I'll await the other Wikipedian's comments. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 12:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That an article is incomplete is a reason to improve it, not to destroy it. Many articles start out subjective, but the community usually solved that issue in good enough time. Fiddle Faddle 12:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Timtrent, My contention was that it was inherently subjective, not just that it was subjective. Seems I may have been wrong on that, based on a source I had no access to, and I'll happily withdraw if so. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 12:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
YorkshireLad, Your free choice to withdraw or persevere. Withdrawal does not prevent a future nomination by you or others. Fiddle Faddle 12:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Timtrent, I'm just waiting for Redrose64, who I believe is the editor Andrew tagged above, and who apparently may have a useful contribution. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 13:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We can have an article and a category with the same topic, but I would suggest adding more detailed criteria for inclusion in the first paragraph. BlacknoseDace (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I intend to address some of the points raised above over the course of several edits, beginning with the nomination itself.
Manchester United Football Ground serves only the football ground, and is only open when there are matches being played there, and the trains run a shuttle between there and Oxford Road, serving only Deansgate in between; they run at times that suit the start and end of matches. In contrast, Wembley Stadium serves a number of facilities in the area (including Wembley Arena) as well as the Wembley Park area in general, and has a frequent service (at least 1 per hour) from several stations, some as far away as Aylesbury.

IBM served only the factory, but Morris Cowley served the general area.

Newhaven Marine served only the port, but Teesside Airport serves the general area (although there isn't much there that isn't within walking distance of Dinsdale). Also, the trains at Newhaven Marine were timed to meet the boats; Teesside Airport has the same times week on week.

Smallbrook Junction exists to provide interchange between two separate railways a few yards apart. It has no pedestrian access.

It can be said that a station is special purpose if either (i) the trains do not appear in the public timetable, stopping only when additional arrangements are made; or (ii) it has no access to the general public (such as having the only access to its entrance being across private land). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sounds like a potential useful thing to have, as long as the type of stations that are meant to be listed on it are clearly defined. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apologies for wasting anyone's time; it really did seem to me, based on all the information I had available (and since no definition was given in the article) that this was just a subjective list of weird stations. Withdrawn; I will speedy keep close in my next edit. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 20:47, 17 July 2020 (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.