Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lafayette Square 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 keep. General consensus. As a aside, "test cases" should be PROD'd rather than sent to AfD. (non-admin closure) Nördic   Nightfury  08:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Lafayette Square station

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a test case for potential deletion of all of (or the majority of) the Buffalo Metro Rail articles (found at List of Buffalo Metro Rail stations). I don't believe this light rail station is notable, and there are no sources in the article to bolster any claim to notability. There's no question that the system as a whole is notable, but individual stations are rather run-of-the-mill. Wikipedia is not a guidebook. Powers T 20:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge per very long standing consensus (see Notability (Railway lines and stations)). Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, User:Thryduulf, but what consensus? The section you link to is awkwardly written ("It may be considered that..."??) but it does explicitly say "For ... stations on metro, light rail, ... if insufficient source material is available for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the station in an article about the line or system that the station is on." (Emphasis mine.) That doesn't in any way imply that all rail stations are presumptively notable. On the contrary, it clearly points out that station articles must pass the GNG. Does this one? Powers T 16:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It means that it should not be deleted. If it passes the GNG then it should have an article, if it doesn't then it should be merged (and, implicitly, redirected) to the article about the line or system. This is why I prefixed my comment "keep or merge" not "keep". Thryduulf (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The information in the article is unsourced. What is there to merge? Powers T 17:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to do anything myself right now, but "unsourced" does not equate to "unsourceable", but generally the following should be merged if not already covered by the target article: location, key dates (e.g. opening), previous names (if any), the line it's on, services, the area and/or attractions/facilities it serves, transport connections (or a summary of these if there are lots), any notable features or differences to other stations (architecture, facilities, only station with or without X, etc). Thryduulf (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Thryduulf. Mackensen (talk) 12:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:5P1 and our mission of providing information appropriate to an almanac.  Jim Miller  See me 14:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge per Thryduulf. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per consensus on these transportation-related articles. Alansohn (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What consensus? Where is it recorded? Powers T 03:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - The notability guidelines state "It may be considered that if enough attributable information is available about a station on a main system to verify that it exists, it generally is appropriate for the subject to have its own article. For ... stations on metro, light rail, tram, people mover, or heritage railway lines, if insufficient source material is available for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the station in an article about the line or system that the station is on." In this instance, there is sufficient material. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting assertion. Where is this attributable information? The article attributes no sources.  Powers T 23:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again, "unsourced" and "unsourceable" are not the same. Thryduulf (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that. But the fact that the article is unsourced means that the existence of sources can't be taken for granted. I should think it's incumbent on those of you claiming that there is attributable information to be salvaged to demonstrate that reliable sources exist. Powers T 18:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2017 (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.