Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ealing Broadway Platform 9


 * 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 Redirect to Ealing Broadway station only because there might be some useful info to transfer (though I think most of it is already there). In this case, notability is clearly not inherited. The few Keep votes are mostly "it's notable", and another editor was under the impression it was a station in its own right. I have protected the redirect given some of the remarks made in this AfD. Black Kite 14:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ealing Broadway Platform 9

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A "contested" (unexplained, waste of everyone's time) proposed deletion. My original reasoning: "Far too specific an article - a single unremarkable platform at a railway station?"; a further endorsment by Jfire: "Ealing Broadway station is reasonable; an article on a single platform there is taking it too far". Thanks/wangi (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The result was Delete under WP:CSD per  Pedro :  Chat  11:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reopening- author has recreated page, less than a day after requesting speedy deletion. Content is substantially the same and discussion below relevant. Thanks/wangi (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Ealing Broadway station.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 14:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Even a redirect is overkill. The article is a train timetable. Wikipedia is not a train schedule. DarkAudit (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The article asserts notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? Where? — BradV 16:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The paragraph starting Ealing Broadway Platform 9 is also a very individual and high profile platform. The platform appears to be over 100 years old and has distinctive original features.  It is therefore of historic interest.  Colonel Warden (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * An article has to do more than assert notability -- although in this case it's more than you infer such an assertion than it actually does assert the same -- to be keepworthy; an assertion of any sort serves only to disqualify an article from Speedy Deletion. Notability has to be verifiable as well.  Were I to create an article about myself and claim to be the Fire God of the Neptunians, I'm sure you wouldn't support Keep on that basis and that alone.    Ravenswing  16:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) First of all, you'll need a reference for that assertion. Second, just because something is old does not imply that it is notable. It needs to be covered by reliable, third party sources. See WP:N. — BradV 16:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no necessity for this. What an article needs is verifiability and NPOV.  It's fine. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Overwhelming, Monster, Godzilla-Stomp Delete: Are you freaking kidding me?  An article on a single platform at a train station?  Yes, WP:BITE is important, but we're being had here; this has to be a joke.  Short of a subsequent article being written about the trash can on the left-hand side of the chipped column on Ealing Broadway Platform 9, we have a new Wikipedia record for non-notability and non-verifiability.    Ravenswing  16:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not even close to the record. We have hundreds of articles about unnamed and unseen rocks (minor asteroids plotted by automated machinery).  Or many hamlets with a handful of dwellings.  This platform, by contrast is in a busy terminus and is used by many thousands of people.  The author has taken some care to document this and deserves better than these careless, knee-jerk reactions.  Its verifiability, for example, is trivial to establish - see Direct access for example. This source even contains a photo and the antique underground emblem can be seen in this.  If you don't understand why this is special, then you should confine yourself to articles on Godzilla and other pop culture. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you genuinely believe that a discrete subway platform is "special," I shall leave you to your beliefs.   Ravenswing  16:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What article are you reading? One line all the way at the bottom of the article mentions anything about the history. Everything else is a timetable. DarkAudit (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails notability and verifiability - A search turns up nothing useful. — BradV 16:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You prove yourself wrong since these hits demonstrate verifiability. Note also that Google searches are insufficient grounds for deletion.  In the case of historic places such as this, much information is buried in paper sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - as original prod endorser. This is ridiculous; I have to think Colonel Warden is trying his hand at an April Fools Joke. Look at the picture... it's a freakin' train platform, like thousands of others. Nothing notable about it. Jfire (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If we look at the last article you worked upon, we see that it is Guárico River. I have nothing against this but a mean-spirited person might say that it is just a freakin' river, like thousands of others.  Please explain why a one-sentence stub about a river is better than a well-developed article about a distinctive and historic railway platform in a busy metropolis. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you compare the results of these two searches, perhaps you'll see the difference: . Jfire (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your search technique is poor since a four word phrase is too exact - the usage will vary more. Such phrases are better broken up and then we get a comparable result. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per everyone. And Colonel Warden, replying to everyone that disagrees with you is not going to help your case; I frankly find your arguments to be without merit. JuJube (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "We have not yet begun to fight" :). These initial exchanges are useful in establishing the key points.  Having explored the sources and turned up much interesting material, the next step will be to improve the article but this takes time.  If all you have to offer is a Delete per then don't let us detain you ... Colonel Warden (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Well developed? Can I have some of what you're smoking? It's a freaking railway timetable! DarkAudit (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As with User:Jfire, it is instructive to see what articles you favour. The last article you worked upon seems to be Paul Atkinson.  And again this is a one-sentence stub which one might dismiss as just another priest.  Is there a reason why you are attacking the better work of others rather than improving these stubs? You do realise that you do not need to "make space" before expanding those articles?  Colonel Warden (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As with your comments to User:Jfire, that is completely irrelevant to this discussion. And if your participation in this AfD is your idea of a joke, it's not funny, and is borderline disruptive. — BradV 19:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My comments are not irrelevant. One might characterise as them as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which is a common if weak AFD argument.  I see them more as demonstrating that these editors tolerate other material which is even more inconsequential and so their arguments are essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is also weak.  I am no doubt commenting more than is politically wise but bear in mind that this is supposed to be a reasoned discussion rather than a headcount or vote.  Some back-and-forth is appropriate to test the quality of the arguments. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Colonel, do you mean the edit DarkAudit made to that article reverting obvious vandalism? Whether you're just not paying attention or are outright trolling, I have no idea, but the time to cease being disruptive is now.   Ravenswing  19:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Presumed to fail WP:N unless reliable sources are provided that extensively treat this particular platform. Deor (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - just as Verifiable as a host of other geographic stubs. The Article does assert Notability. Deletes are based upon the fact that it has no WP:RS, just like a whole host of hungarian town stubs. This will change once the relevant WikiProject gets to it, is there a rush? WP will always be a work in progress. (Please be careful that your !Vote is not based upon WP:IDONTLIKEHIM, which seems to be the tone that this AfD is taking) Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  23:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately this isn't a town, for which that argument would apply. — BradV 00:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Assertion of notability will keep an article from being speedily deleted, that's all. After that, you have to prove it. Everyone keeps harping on the single sentence at the bottom of the article. Take that single sentence out, and you're left with a railway timetable, nothing more. Wikipedia is not a train schedule. That one sentence can be merged in with the article on the station where it belongs. DarkAudit (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then please explain all the aforementioned Hungarian towns to me if it "must be proven". I admit, this article needs cleanup, but that seems to be the basic reason !votes are using to base a Delete upon, when it is not required for this verifiable geographic location. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  21:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - oh dear God, I really hope this was created as an April Fool. It is ridiculously non-notable - and I say this as one who has been to the platform in question, there's nothing special about it! Individual railway platforms are never notable; when you consider that the (arguably) most notable railway platform in the world, Platform Nine and Three Quarters, does not have its own article, you realise that this one most definitely should not. (And it has no sources, anyway.) Terraxos (talk) 05:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well your wrong about "Individual railway platforms are never notable...", see Howard (CTA) and if that isnt small enough, how about Loyola (CTA). Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  21:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (copied from User talk:Exit2DOS2000)
 * Nobody is saying that the railway station isn't notable, it is. It has an article at Ealing Broadway station. The article is purely for a single platform (out of the nine at the station). Thanks/wangi (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand, but the arguments being used as reasons to !Vote delete, are faulty. IF a geographic location has can satisfy WP:V, why must it go? Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  21:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I was confused - the examples you gave were train stations, I guess they might have just had 1 or 2 platforms, but it was a discrete station never the less. In this case the individual platform isn't notable itself, there is perhaps a single sentence that can be said about it (re old style signs) but this is covered in the article about the station. Everything else comes under the spirit of WP:NOT along with many other policy and guidelines - this isn't a timetable, this isn't a reference for train buffs -- it's an encyclopaedia. What can be said about platform 9 at Ealing Broadway that cannot be covered at Ealing Broadway station? You can verify an amazing number of things - doesn't mean they are encyclopaedic. Thanks/wangi (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For future reference Wangi, If you are simply going to ask a Q on my talkpage then transpose it all back to an AfD. Please just ask in the AfD. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  08:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - I created this topic. Please do not delete it, I created because many people who had interests in it suggested I should do so. All the people who want it deleted, I don't know why! You was not the one who spent hours working on it, collecting all the information, and typing it up etc! If you don't like the article then don't look at it. Nobody is forcing you to go on it. I don't look at X rated web sites, I don't think there necessary, but I dont demand that they are deleted! ! ! Wikipedia is about freeing the knowledge! Surely all knowledge is good, as long as it is accurate. This is accurate. What is wrong with that ? ? ?   Deleting it would go against everything wikipedia stands for   ... PS I will take a picture shortly to add onto the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atgio (talk • contribs) 2008-04-02T12:44:23
 * Response: Wikipedia is not, in fact, about "freeing the knowledge." Articles are assessed on various policies and standards, and I strongly recommend you take a look at WP:V and WP:N, as well as WP:PILLARS, to get a better handle on what they are.  Articles which the Wikipedia community believes do not meet those standards are subject to deletion, which the AfD process is for.   Ravenswing  17:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And on that note, I to hope that you (Ravenswing) also read thoes pages you mention. This Platform is WP:V. WP:N is only a guideline, not a Policy, so is flexable in interpretation and WP:PILLARS specifically points out (in bold) Wikipedia does not have firm rules and so would not tend to warrent a WP:BITEy "Overwhelming, Monster, Godzilla-Stomp Delete". "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." sound familiar? Jimmy Wales said it and that could be interpreted as "freeing the knowledge." Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  08:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment We had a black comedy of errors today in which the author seemed to misinterpret the AFD template, placed a db-author tag on the article which was then speedily deleted, despite the author's obvious protestations. The article was then userfied and when the author was notified of this he predictably recreated it and then it was predictably sent back here again.  This bureaucratic farce is the process of biting newbies which is well critiqued at RFA. Common-sense is noticeably absent from this process since this article is quite harmless and does not violate our policies in any way. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Ealing Broadway station obviously. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe all notable information (i.e. the original roundal on platforms 8 and 9) is already on the main article. /wangi (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment 'Thank You Colonel Warden, I am very new at this, and this is indeed the first article I have published. Which I worked very hard on! I do not see what harm this article is doing at all. Or why anyone is going out of there way to have my hard work disposed of. ( Atgio (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC) )
 * Comment Atgio, firstly apologies that your start to the Wikipedia experience has not been as easy as it could have been - in fact a bit of a misery. Please feel assured that no-one is against you or your hard efforts, but we are not a random depository of information. We are an encyclopedia, and as such have policies and guidelines laid down on what is, or is not, the correct content for Wikipedia. Whatever the outcome of this AFD please rest assured that all editors here hope you will continue to contribute. Secondly, Colonel Warden - ss a seasoned Wikipedia editor, which you are, can you not see that "it's not doing any harm" is about a good a rationale as WP:ILIKEIT. We get flooded by non-notable information everyday. 99.99999% doesn't "do any harm". It's not a reason for keeping it though. Pedro : Chat  19:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The topic is not "random" as you suggest. The author had specific reasons for selecting this platform as he has indicated and these are now emerging as the article is fleshed out.  To delete the article on the basis of a such a superficial snap-judgement would be contrary to policy.  See WP:IMPERFECT. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, poor phrasing. My thrust of that remark is better summed up at WP:INDISCRIMINATE Pedro : Chat  17:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete if someone wants information on a particular platform, they'd look for it at the train station where, incidentally, anything useful already exists. We've verified it exists, yes, doesn't mean it needs an article. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 00:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Despite the disruption earlier, Atgio has added some more content and I have done some formatting and linking. References have been added and the article seems to be coming along quite nicely.  I myself have learnt several interesting things from this and still see no reason why our readership should be denied the opportunity to share in this knowledge. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no real substancial secondary sources. Plus why do we need a freaking timetable, this is an encyclopedia not a railway guide. D.M.N. (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep In its lede article establishes encyclopedic notability through historical references. According to wikipedia policy, once notability is established whatever else the article includes so long as WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR are met is irrelevant. This would include freaking timetable. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Your argument, Firefly, is this this is notable because it's "historical"? (Incidentally there are no references that support the age of the station given so far). Just being around a long time does not make something notable. Example: There's a thatched cottage in my village dating from the 1700's. Nothing has ever happened there of any significance. It's old and it certinaly exists. But it's existence is not encyclopedic material. Pedro : Chat  14:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Pedro, have you lost your mind? As an evaluting administrator who previously deleted the article, there is no way you should now be contributing to the debate in any way.  It is a reprehensibly grave error in judgement. And you've done it twice.  --Firefly322 (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Err, no, and please don't leave edit summaries of "administrator abuse". I deleted it under WP:CSD per the authors request when he tagged it db-author. It transpires the author did not understand what the tag did, but I'm afraid that's not my fault. I closed the AFD as the article was gone. The author recreated the article, so the AFD was re-opened. If I closed this AFD as a consensus decision (either way) that would be out of process, yes, but I fail utterly to see how my actions so far preclude me from commenting on the value of the article (and you will note I have not made a delete or keep comment - I have made an edit explaining my actions so far and questioning onwe users interpretation of notability,, and I have made an edit questioning your interpretation of notability). Would you like to reconsider your comments in light of these facts? Pedro : Chat  14:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Completely backup your behaviour in this situation - everything done has been in good faith. I see no reason whatsoever you should be precluded form this discussion. Thanks/wangi (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's a startling assertion that an admin previously involved has no right to express an opinion.  What is a violation of process is an admin (for instance) deleting an article after he's weighed in on the debate.  As far as I'm concerned, Pedro can say whatever he pleases and comment Keep or Delete as suits him ... as long as he isn't thereafter the closing admin.  And doubly agreed ... for pity's sake, I pass through the Boylston station in Boston's subway every day.  Boylston was built in the 19th century, and you can still see the original steel support columns.  No one would ever assert (or so I would have thought, before this debate) that the inbound platform deserved its own independent article.    Ravenswing  15:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for the kind words of support. And, for the record, clearly I will not be closing this AFD. No admin would/should close an AFD they have commented on. I have taken up my concern (in particular regarding the edit summary) with Firefly322 on his user page. That way we can hopefully get back to the point here, which is the relevant merits or otherwise of both the article and the arguments as to wether it should be kept, deleted or merged. Pedro : Chat  15:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding Boylston, this seems to be an exceptionally notable place - being especially old, having some museum pieces and appearing in literature. I found the article interesting but it could use further development and it is a shame that we are wasting out time upon this negative bureaucracy rather than such constructive work. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Early on, this turned into a really nasty debate, showing a complete derailment in significant wikipedia guidelines: WP:UCS and WP:BITE. Any administrators and experienced editors in their right minds would have distanced themselves as much as possible. Yet Pedro and you others have done just the opposite. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What? So if a situation is turning into a "complete derailment" then admins and experienced editors walk away? That's excatly the opposite of what should happen. Pedro : Chat  15:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I have added some more sections to improve the article further.  Elsewhere in AFD, I see a reference to the case of Mzoli's which seems relevant.  The press coverage explains. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge - I think the reference to a pre-1919 sign and the original signal cabin might be notable enough to be worth preserving, but details of trains are in practice unmaintainable. The right place for them is on a London Transport website, which will certainly be maintained.  The rest is of little value and should not survive.  I am not clear why this article is tagged both for AFD and Rescue.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * One tag is a consequence of the other. When some editors impatiently demand that an article be deleted, other editors have to move quickly in order to save it.  This may be difficult at short notice.  I was myself late for work this morning since I burnt the midnight oil working upon the article.  Colonel Warden (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Selective merge I agree that some of the comments here have been less than helpful, and I'm sorry that a new editor has had a pretty lousy first experience of Wikipedia. But while the article is not entirely without merit, I still can't see any value to keeping a separate article on this individual platform. The timetable information is a fairly textbook example of what Wikipedia is not, and apart from the principle that an encyclopaedia is not the same thing as a train timetable, Peterkingiron raises the valid practical point that we could not realistically hope to keep that sort of information accurate and up to date - how many editors are actually going to go round all of our railway articles checking that they're still correct every time a new timetable is published? (If I were feeling sarky, I'd also add that a British railway timetable is the epitome of an unreliable source, or that as an article about a work of fiction it needs to demonstrate real world notability. ;-p) The stuff about the original sign and the signal cabin is more promising, but there doesn't seem to be any obvious reason whuy it needs to be here rather than in the main Ealing Broadway station (which notes that more than one platform has original signs). Unless there's so much to say specifically about this one platform that it can't reasonably fit into the main article, spinning it off into additional sub articles just makes it harder for the reader to find the information, and risks unnecessary duplication of work. So I say remove the timetable, and merge what can be sourced and isn't there already into the main article Ealing Broadway station article. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 18:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I was amused by the first reference. Will we see an article for each section of track because the newspaper reported a breakdown, an injury or a death? This is just silly. What Wikipedia is not - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge. Way, way, way too specific. Guy (Help!) 15:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Don't see why all this can't be covered under Ealing Broadway station. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  15:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, with any useful information being added to the Ealing Broadway station article if it is not already included. Mjroots (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge - Lest we have articles like Oakland International Airport Terminal One Gate 7 with content including "Recently remodeled, this United Airlines-leased gate is the usual departure point of United Express flights to Los Angeles operated by SkyWest with Canadair CRJ-200 aircraft." Eesh, I hope I didn't give anyone any ideas there. FCYTravis (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete but perhaps merge more or less into Ealing Broadway station. This article asserts historical notbility without a shred of text to support it. Although I do think train articles tend to be more notable because of the wide interest in them, this is a bit too much even for me, as above. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Ealing Broadway Station. -- Naerii  18:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge (after removing excess detail) to Ealing Broadway Station. I would also like to comment that sometimes the oddest things can become notable. I walk past a war memorial every couple of weeks at a London underground tube station. There are tens of thousands of war memorials all over Britain, but I fully intend to add something one day to Baker Street tube station about its war memorial. The relevant information here can be handled similarly: the historical information can be merged to Ealing Broadway Station, as suggested. I could even get some better free pics of the roundels now that summer is approaching and the evenings are lighter. Focus less on articles and their titles, but on the information and the correct location. A simple edit, merge and redirect would have avoided all this. Carcharoth (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Selective merge per Iain99 and Carcharoth shortly above. Contrary to a number of people, some of them apparently excited, I'm quite open to the notion of an entire article on a station platform -- IFF this is merited by the article on the station as a whole and the material on the particular platform. So if for example the stunning Antwerpen-Centraal railway station had the full article its pre-1998 state deserved (which I say without wanting to disparage the considerable efforts that have already been made), and if its recent subterranean development (of which I know very little) were as interesting as it might be and also confined to a single platform, then this platform might well justify an article. However, there really doesn't seem to be all that much to say about either this platform of Ealing Broadway station or the station as a whole. Strip the unencyclopedic stuff from the former, merge the remainder with the latter, and you end up with an article that's more than averagely long and interesting for a suburban London station but that's not unwieldy. ¶ Despite my disagreement with his position, I commend Colonel Warden for his dignity and courtesy (and stamina) above. (And I should like to read what Wageless would say about this.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words. I do, however, disagree that there is not much that can be said about the full station.  It has proved surprisingly easy to gather much interesting material about this one of its nine platforms.  I now fancy I could write a book about the station as a whole.   For example, if one studies the sources then, apart from much transport history, one sees that the station shows up regularly in accounts of rock gods like Eric Clapton and the Rolling Stones.  And there's the IRA bomb.  And the Crossrail project.  And the gargantuan Ealing Leaf project.  And who knows what else.  The difficulty in such cases in knowing where to start.  One might proceed top-down but in this case the author has decided to write from the bottom-up.  It is an interesting stylistic effect, somewhat like pointillism or Diary of a Nobody and it would be a shame to see this crushed by Beeching-like sentiments of economic efficiency.  We must remember that Wikipedia is not paper and so there are few practical limits which require us to limit such experimentation. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Another example of train station memorabilia is Station Jim, a stuffed dog on platform 5 at Slough railway station. See here and here. I have a free picture of Station Jim, and like the war memorial example above, am considering adding a bit to the station article. It is tidbits like these that make articles interesting, so please, when considering articles like this in future, consider where to put the verifiable information, rather than merely chosing between delete or keep. Carcharoth (talk) 09:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Station Jim is a delightful story - thank you. He seemed so obviously notable, like Greyfriars Bobby that I have created an article on him alone.  Please take it from there and add your photos and other details. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:34, 6 April 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.