Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Londonderry 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 of the debate was KEEP by community decision. -- Psy guy ^Talk 00:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Londonderry railway station

Non-notable railway station StoatBringer 01:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, important to citizens of the city. Kappa 02:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • So is the supermarket. --Last Malthusian 09:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Which supermarket? and so what? Kappa 00:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, there's room to expand; give it a chance to live. Peyna 03:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Week Delete. Offers no real information. It does have potential to be a useful article, but simply having potential to be a good article shouldn't be enough reason to have it stay. (Notorious4life 05:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC))
• Delete, no encyclopaedic information. Wikipedia is not a yellow pages or a transport planner. --Last Malthusian 09:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There is a long established policy that railway stations are kept. This is the station in the second largest city in Northern Ireland. There are many articles about less significant stations in England and elsewhere, so deleting it would be inconsistent. CalJW 09:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Main railway stations in cities are notable. And as it stands there are zillions of station articles less notable than this one. - Randwicked 10:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the article gives a alternative name, says which company runs it and says where its services run to. It's a valid stub. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable railway station in significant city.Capitalistroadster 15:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above. Trollderella 21:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep railroad stations. Wikipedia even has an entire Category:Disused London Underground stations. In other words, London deleted the stations, but Wikipedia has articles on them. Of course we should keep articles on presently operating railroad stations. (forgot to sign! Fg2 11:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC))
• Delete Unless the lack of credible sources is remedied, this appears to violate Wikipedia:Verifiability --redstucco 11:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The article does not violate that policy. That policy requires that it be verifiable, not that it be verified. Wikipedia does not require editors to cite sources. (It does say that they "should" but does not require it.) The existence of a source, whether cited in the article or not, is enough to meet the verifiability requirement. Fg2 12:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"Articles in Wikipedia should refer to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have been published by a reputable or credible publisher. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."

What is the credible publisher that has certified the facts in this article? If there is one, I am happy for this article to exist, if there is not, it should be removed as original research. --redstucco 10:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Seems more notable than most railway stations already on Wikipedia. Should expand. JPD 11:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, railway stations are notable. Stifle 21:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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.