Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cooerwull railway station, New South Wales


 * 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 - early closure as it's clear where this will end - Peripitus (Talk) 23:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Cooerwull railway station, New South Wales

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Only contains templates. Endarrt (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Now contains prose... took all of 30 seconds. --W.marsh 01:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Improve, not remove. Bad content is not justification for deleting an article that meets inclusion criteria. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - article has been expanded and includes its purpose, its contribution to the local economy and recognition of subsequent heritage status. Not all disused railway stations have significance but this one is a notable historical feature. I appreciate that wasn't apparent from the article when this was AfD'ed but feel it has now been improved sufficiently to be retained. Euryalus (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, decent station article with references provided for verifiability. Lankiveil (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Strong keep - page needed a request for expansion, not an AfD and has sufficient content to warrant keeping. Additionally, this is a bad faith nomination by user with a history of wanting pages deleted without sufficient reason. JRG (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Editors, lets keep the discussion germane to the debate at hand. If there are issues about an editor making repeated poor judgement on AfD, then start a dialog on that users Talk Page. Healthy New Year to you all! LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I thought this was a relevant comment to make in light of this AfD, that this isn't the first AfD the user has started for a spurious reason. JRG (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the article as it stands now provides adequate support to satisfy the Notability standard. As there seems to be only one Cooerwull railway station, I would suggest removing NSW from the title once the AfD closes. Alansohn (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - the "X, State" or "X, City" designations are Australian conventions for railway stations, railway lines and suburbs. JRG (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems to make it unlikely that anyone would ever type the article name directly, but convention is convention. Alansohn (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Rebecca (talk) 12:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? This is a consensus, not a vote. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   —Longhair\talk 17:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep since it has been improved a bit I guess and I can't think of a reason why it needs to go (nor has anyone else presented one). Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks great now, understandable nomination if there was no real content before. --Canley (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2007 (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.