Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kouwenhoven 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 redirect to Bay Ridge Branch. The question of what information about the station should be incorporated over at the target can be dealt with outside AfD. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Kouwenhoven station

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

Created by a sockpuppet. A G5 CSD attempt was opposed by another editor, so here we are. This station is not notable, existing refs come nowhere close to meeting GNG, and I haven't found much of anything from a BEFORE search. The outcome here should be a redirect to Bay Ridge Branch, but as that would certainly be contested, I am nominating the article for deletion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New York. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge a nice subsection perhaps for former railway stations in the main article about the railway; it closed 100 yrs ago and likely won't get much more notable these days. I don't find much beyond fan-sites for rail nerds such as myself. Oaktree b (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Bay Ridge Branch. Clear GNG fail, and there doesn't seem to be any relevant information available other than the open/close dates already in that table. Myrtle Avenue station (LIRR Bay Ridge Branch) should also be deleted for the same reasons (save for G5 ineligibility, as it was created by a legitimate user.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect per above. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 18:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge per Oaktree b. We have a small amount of verifiable encyclopaedic information, we don't have enough to sustian an article but there is no reason to remove the information when there is a clearly appropriate merge target. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 4 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.