Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broomhill (Northumberland) 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 was no consensus. Consensus is against deleting the content but still no consensus on whether the content should be in this article or in the branch line article. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 12:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Broomhill (Northumberland) railway station

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No valid references to support inclusion. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 08:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Shellwood (talk) 09:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect Merge to Amble branch line, the line this station was on. That page has its own issues, but there's a stronger argument to keep that page than there is for this station. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Edited on the 27th from redirect to merge. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting. No consensus to Delete but opinion is divided among those advocating Keep and Redirect. Please do not move the article during an open AFD discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with Redirect to Amble branch line.--Bduke (talk) 06:02, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Expanded significantly since the nomination with several new references. --NemesisAT (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have checked every source I can access, and none of them is more than a sentence or two on the topic. There is no significant coverage of this station, and it does not merit a standalone article as a result. All we have is "it opened, it closed, and one year it had this number of passengers". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment/request – or others, could you please very kindly remind us what policy we are working under here? I have the vague feeling that the notability requirement, or something, for individual stations has ??recently changed but I am too vague/senile/etc to remember exactly what I saw and where! A pointer to precisely what we're discussing here (the policy not the station!) would be a massive help to a vaguely interested but uncommitted browser ... TIA DBaK (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * See WT:N. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! DBaK (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Amble branch line, I have tried to add to the article since the deletion nomination, yet as Trainsandotherthings says the sources I found for the station only mention the station in passing, there is no sources about the station that I think qualifies it as notable, and also I think I am of the opinion of Option 3 of WT:N (Inherently notable, but may be merged), and therefore should be merged into Amble branch line. NDNSWMI (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears to have sufficient sourcing to meet WP:GNG. Can't think of any British railway station that wouldn't have, given the amount written about the British railway network over the years. Has anyone actually bothered to check the two books cited, or just relied on the online sources? Because it seems to me that their existence has been completely ignored (see WP:OFFLINE). I note that nobody has proposed keeping any of the information about it, just redirecting, which would obviously be a disservice to Wikipedia. We should never wilfully delete information on a valid subject of interest just because of some dogma. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, I've added a closure detail, the article has sufficient sourcing.Nempnet (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Adequately sourced and there is too much encyclopaedic information here to really justify a merge to the branch line, especially as per others there appears to be more information in offline sources. Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep railway stations are generally notable and there seems to be enough sources anyway.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 08:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Merge to TheLongTone (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is now of sufficient length that a merge with the line article isn't desirable. Mackensen (talk) 11:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, as I linked above, a recent RfC explicitly found that train stations have no sort of inherent notability and must stand on their own merits. Any votes arguing the station should be kept just because it's a train station should be discarded by the closer. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * None of the keep votes are arguing for inclusion purely because it is a railway station so I don't see the point in your comment. NemesisAT (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Assuming that significant coverage on the subject exists in offline sources (which Necrothesp certainly believes so, and I would be inclined to do so as well), subject passes WP:GNG. As to why it shouldn't be merged, again, more information about the subject could be added from the aforementioned offline sources by someone who has access to them. Same could apply to the target page to merge to. HenryTemplo (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2022 (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.