Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Llandinam 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Llandinam railway station

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:FAILN-Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING, the only source listed is a real-estate sale that was removed by the agent. JTZegers Speak Aura 12:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: Llandinam railway station is an artificial features related to infrastructure. It is mentioned in independent sources. I have added some further information about its history, further references, and a photograph of the site from Geograph. Steepleman (t) 13:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Smerge to Llandinam. This is not a significant disused station, the sources are trivial (namechecks, pictures) or unreliable. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also OK with merge to Llanidloes and Newtown Railway, for the avoidance of doubt. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Llanidloes and Newtown Railway rather than Llandinam. Two usable sources have been provided - and  - both of which are about the railway with side mentions of the station. Not enough for a standalone but some expansion of the list entry for the station at Llanidloes and Newtown Railway can be made of that. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep based on good source (Kidner book) now added. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per Notability (Railway lines and stations) this isn't a "historic railways stations that only existed briefly" - it existed for over 100 years. I've expanded it too. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Notability (Railway lines and stations). Substantial article about a closed station. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Redroe64. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as per railway station notability guidelines mentioned above. Julius177 (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment on that guideline: err, hello, all you "keep" voters who are happily citing Notability (Railway lines and stations) - I suggest actually reading it:
 * There are many thousands of railway and subway stations. The question is sometimes raised as to whether one of these places is notable enough for a standalone article. Wikipedia:Notability says: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." If enough attributable information exists about a station or railway line to write a full and comprehensive article about it, then it may be appropriate for the subject to have its own article. For proposed or planned stations, historic railways stations that only existed briefly, or 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.


 * This absolutely does not say that "railway stations above a certain age automatically get an article". That is still entirely dependent on availability of a sufficient amount of good material. I actually agree that the Kidner book added by Redrose64 does provide enough information now, but that has nothing to do with this guideline. Please don't do this - it's the same misapprehension as claiming that every song that charts should automatically get an article as per WP:NSONG... -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * If Redroe64 has found a good source, and has expanded the article accordingly, I'll "happily keep citing" their !vote, thanks. The station was there, as a functioning concern, for 108 years? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, you get a pass by phrasing... the peeps above and below you don't. And no, if there is insufficient sourcing to write an article, then even the station where the Salamanca ascended unto heaven would not get an article. It's an indicator of presumption of notability, not a criterion of sufficieny. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Snow keep per WP:HEY and the addition of sources which shows that, in addition to the SNG which is a decent indicator in this case, the station meets WP:GNG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Railway stations have always been held to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ...If enough attributable information exists about a station or railway line to write a full and comprehensive article about it, then it MAY be appropriate for the subject to have its own article. Can we stop it with the facile blanket statements? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we stop it with the denial of very clear consensus which has seen almost no railway station articles deleted in years! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2021 (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.