Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Success Hill railway station, Perth

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 keep. John254 15:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Success Hill railway station, Perth

Success Hill railway station, Perth (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No reliable sources can be found which afford this railway station any degree of notability. As it stands now, the articles fail verifiability. Additionally, the article consists of nothing more than an infobox with information which goes against WP:NOT#TRAVEL. It seems that complete listings of train stations is part of the train wikiproject, however, as this article fails the policy of verifiability it is being listed at Afd. Russavia (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. There is longstanding precedent that railway stations are inherently notable precisely because there is virtually always reliable sources available for them. There are a mountain of books on railway history in each city, including Perth, with enough information to form a good referenced article on every station on the network. I know it seems like terribly hard work for those who decide that there must be no sources after a twenty-second Google search, but with the slightest bit of actual research this could be a good article. Rebecca (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Having grown up in the local area myself, more than a 'twenty-second Google search' was used in putting this up for Afd. Whilst there are reliable sources available for this station online, none that I am able to find are able to give the station any degree of notability to allow for inclusion in the overall scheme of WP:FIVE. Can you possibly provide further info on the precedent you mention? In regards to the precedent, I can find no precedent in my searches. All I have been able to find is this and this. The first link states 'Subway and railway lines are acceptable, but individual stations are questionable.' This Afd is in relation to a station, not on the line. It also states that 'This essay also should not be used as the sole argument in AFDs, as policies and guidelines are what decide whether an article is kept or deleted.' (of course, I am not insinuating this is your sole argument to keep). However, concensus can change, and perhaps it should, as notability is not necessarily inherited (as we see time and time again right here at Afd). I have absolutely no doubt that the line on which Sucky Hill is located is notable, due to its history and the number of sources which would write in detail about the line which can be used to write an encyclopaedic entry, but for this station, I don't believe there are any substantial sources which meets fulfills WP:V and WP:RS and WP:NOT. Which leads to the second link, which states 'If some source material is available, but is insufficient for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the subject under the article for its parent locality.' (in the Bassendean article). And goes on to state 'If no source material, or only directory-type information (location, function, name, address) can be provided, the subject may not merit mention at all.' Obviously, it is worthy of a mention, just not an article of its own due to it failing core WP policies, and I have looked and looked. --Russavia (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • No, you haven't "looked and looked". As in every other city in the country, there are an abundance of print material on the Perth railway system. There are also two or three long-running journals dedicated to Australian railway history. Both of these have tons of station-level information, and plenty enough to create a good article on any station on the network. I have certainly had little trouble finding sources for any station I have ever chosen to write about. As you've said yourself, you only looked in Google, so how can you suggest that you have the slightest clue about whether or not there are reliable sources? As I said above, it is precisely because the reliable sources in this area are so comprehensive that stations have long been marked as inherently notable. Rebecca (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Point of correction. The Google search comment made by myself was a direct quote from yourself. I searched much more than Google. An admittedly not exhaustive search was also made at the Battye Library and Basso public library, as part of helping an elderly family member research the area in which she grew up. I was able to find plenty of references to the train station, but none of them would suitable for this article, as the sources would be absolutely suitable for the wider Bassendean area, but would not build a comprehensive entry on this very small train station. Again, can you please provide something for us where these stations are inherently notable, because I can't find anything, other than some Afds which were closed with no concensus (which depended on the inherently notable argument) and some talk page chit-chat. Even WP:OUTCOMES states that stations generally are not notable (as stated above), so notability has to be established by using verifiable information from reliable sources. I have looked in 2 main physicalsources for information and can find nothing comprehensive to support the existence of this article, and I am questioning the existence of this article when considering actual policies rather than essays, guidelines and other opinions. --Russavia (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
        • You stated above that your search had been an online, and I call bunkum on your claims to have searched at the Battye. Perhaps, if you were trying to find information for an article about a railway station, you might, like, look at books or journals on railway history, as opposed to "helping a relative research local history", as has anyone who actually wanted to write articles on ralway stations? Looking in places where one would not generally expect to find information on the subject and then claiming that such sources don't exist is either disingenuous or incompetent. You're still misquoting policy, too - there is a longstanding precedent that stations are notable (I cannot think of a single case going back to at least 2003 where a railway station article has been deleted), so on that note you're simply wrong. Rebecca (talk) 08:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I think the nominator has properly defined a stub. This is, however, not a reason for deletion. It does not fail notability and reliable sources are available about it. Both are true in this case. Agreed with Rebecca. Orderinchaos 02:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I am aware this is a stub article, and if it were a band or website, it would clearly be a candidate for speedy deletion. But we have to put these articles up for Afd, something which I even do, and have no hesitation in doing so, within my home wikiproject. You are correct in that an article being a stub is not a reason for deletion. However, not meeting the policy of verifiability is a reason for deletion. You have stated that it does not fail WP:N and WP:RS, I would ask you to provide some further details, of course remembering what Wikipedia is not. --Russavia (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment You keep quoting the policy of verifiability, but is anything in the article really unverifiable and unreferenced? I'm guessing your point is that there's not much to say about the station, and that may be true, but it seems to me that you're citing a policy to add weight to an argument of questionable notability, when said policy does not apply to such an argument. --Canley (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per longstanding precedent on stations in major metropolitan railway systems. WP:NOT#TRAVEL is to prevent Rough Guide style hotel and cafe listings, and does not apply in this case. There is a more relevent essay at Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations), but as an essay there is no obligation to comply. --Canley (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't necessarily agree with the precedent, but it's there, so this subject is inherently notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I definitely have problems with the precedent and have never been quite sure why train stations benefit from such an assumption of notability. That said, the precedent does exist and is not likely to change. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable and contains reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlin (talk • contribs) 04:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't understand why individual stations are notable, even though this is the convention. I find it hard to believe that meaningful RSs can be found for every train station and think that this kind of article is really a respectible form of cruft (why are train crufters OK while Star Wars crufters are, rightfully, hounded?). As such, I'm going to be bold and vote for deletion. --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Its intriguing to read all the stuff above - and I am sure it all means something. I go by the convention of keeping - intriguing stuff could be easily found in Jenny Carters history of bassendean if anyone has a copy to hand - also a very close examination of photos in battye will show it as a location relevant to the two railway bridges over the swan river. also the location of rail crossings, bridges, all inherently important and notable for the east of lord street community - which is in newspaper clippings somewhere SatuSuro 10:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Extra comment - ok I am drawing the line here where someone says there is not a reliable source. There are easily accessible written sources on this railway station - more than most other stations along the midland line. And even if a afd nominator states a checking bother Battye and Bassendean public library - it all depends what you are looking at - maybe when I am back in Perth I could help the nomintaor use the SRO files as well? There is no current 'on line source' for the goggle oriented- fair enough. I have used the station in the past and could (if i wasnt interstate) easily expand the article. however thems the rub - i am away from genuine written items. have fun folks SatuSuro 10:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is yet another example of the misunderstanding of WP:V. And article doesn't fail WP:V if it is currently unverified, but only if it is unverifiable. WP:V is a reason to delete an article if absolutely nothing can be verified, not simply because an editor doesn't see sources placed in the article. Rail stations are inherently notable and sources exist on all of them (government records, railroad company records, newspapers, hardcover books, etc.). --Oakshade (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep tag as a stub and for citations. Dealing with those issues will resolve any probalem with this article. There must be hundreds of thousands of articles that lack adequate citations, but they do not all get deleted. Mind you, I am in another continent and know nothing of the matter. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep this as the article meets the WP:V. And the sources can be found in verifiable sources, as listed on the article. Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 03:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. If the notability policy has become an obstacle to writing articles on encyclopedic topics, then it is time that policy was rewritten. Hesperian 11:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
And besides, I find it very hard to believe that there isn't adequate information on this topic in
Higham, Geoffrey J. (2006). All stations to Guildford: 125 years of the Fremantle to Guildford railway. Bassendean: Rail Heritage WA. 
Hesperian 11:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per above - railway stations are always notable and information is always available on them. The nominator should be ashamed of themselves. JRG (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 12:01, 27 January 2008 (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.