Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nundah 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 merge to Main North railway line, New South Wales. Spartaz Humbug! 16:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Nundah railway station, New South Wales

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Subject is a railway station that existed from 1952 to 1975, at which time it was closed and demolished. Is not notable for any reason other than existing; does not meet GNG.  Pais  a re pa  01:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  Pais  a re pa  01:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Pais  a re pa  01:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - a few points to note: 1. We usually keep railway station articles, except where they are halts with no established platform or station or there's a complete lack of reliable sources or history. 2. The claim that it has now closed does not mean it isn't notable. 3. As a general proposition it's untrue that places like this don't have sources - there are books like John Forsyth's that give detailed histories of New South Wales railway stations including opening dates and history about what happened; additionally, state railway historical societies (e.g. ARHSNSW usually publish books about the history of railway lines which include the history of their stations). I don't know what's out there on Nundah, but the point I make is that most of the sources are likely to be offline and the claim there's no coverage by external sources and an automatic fail of GNG is not something that can be disproved easily (the overlap with a similarly named railway station in Brisbane means it is even harder to find sources). 4. Even despite all the above, there's a clear and appropriate redirect here for Main North railway line, New South Wales, the line on which the station stands, and that must be considered prior to deletion. If sources can't be found that is clearly the appropriate way to fix this. Deus et lex (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There could be information about this station in offline sources that I don't have access to but I was unable to confirm its existence, much less notability, and the only source referenced in the article is a self-published website which unfortunately does not provide its sources. To add more confusion, Google Maps does show a railway station at the given location but lists it as 'Oak Park station'. However, I was likewise unable to find additional references to a station of that name at the given location. A redirect would only be appropriate if the existence and name of this station can be confirmed by a reliable source.  Pais  a re pa  17:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - The platform definitely existed and there are sources out there demonstrating external coverage. I've already referred you to John Forsyth's book which refers to various bits of data on NSW railway stations (and was compiled from original sources in the (then) State Rail archives) and would cover the station. This (current) track diagram (page 38) shows Nundah as a location (which it likely wouldn't have if there never was a platform), this article from the Singleton Argus on 25 April 1952 relates to the closure of the Nundah platform. There's probably a lot more out there. I'd ask you to reconsider this AfD, there are better ways of dealing with this. Deus et lex (talk) 12:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We can speculate that Forsyth would cover the station, but all that matters is whether Forsyth actually does. The railsafe.org.au track diagram confirms that Nundah is a place-name, but assuming a platform existed due to the existence of a place name is far too thin for WP:V. The Singleton Argus newspaper article is not in reference to this station. The newspaper is dated April 1952 and states that the station is closing and being replaced by an unattended siding, and speaks to a planned future deviation of the track. This article states that the station opened in 1952 and on a new section of deviated track. Importantly, all of this is attempting to simply confirm that this station even existed, and existence != notability, even for train stations.  Pais  a re pa  16:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Paisarepa, it's time to stop the nonsense arguments claiming the station doesn't exist. I have already shown you sources that demonstrate that the station existed, it's in fact the Wikipedia article that has an error in it about opening and closing dates, the station actually opened in 1898 but was in two locations (and it was the second one that opened in 1952 after the track was deviated.) Our tendency when there are two station locations to include them as the one station, which is more than reasonable here. Secondly, for what it's worth, I've read the Forsyth book, I borrowed it myself from the State Library of New South Wales, and I know what the contents are (that's why I raised it). It covers railway stations in New South Wales and would cover this one. Thirdly, if you bothered to look beyond the single page on the nswrail.net site, you'll also see there that the station was in two locations and the first site closed in 1952 when a deviation was built (here's the state legislation approving that deviation if you want another source showing that that happened). The Argus article does refer to the same station, it's just that at the time it was in the first location (and it shows that the second was planned to be built). This place existed and is covered by external sources, so stop trying to claim that it didn't exist because it's just nonsense. Again, I want to stress that there are better ways of dealing with this stuff than running a pointless AfD - please reconsider your nomination. Deus et lex (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * nswrail.net is self-published and is not a reliable source. The Singleton Argus article refers to a station at a different location and at a different point in time than this one, so obviously not the same. If you check out Forsyth again and verify that this station did in fact exist and was not just an unattended siding or the like, add to the article the correct information with a full citation, and remove the incorrect content (which is essentially the entire article if what you are saying is correct) then I will withdraw the nomination. But asking me to withdraw it because you're sure that this station is mentioned in a source that is not cited in the article, that I don't have access to, but that you're sure confirms its existence because you borrowed the book from the library once and know what the contents are is a bit silly and not based in WP:N or WP:V. WP:SOURCESEXIST is not a valid argument.  Pais  a re pa  16:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Singleton Argus article DOES describe the same railway station. Please STOP repeating this claim. It is untrue and just a nonsense argument to support deletion. I've tried to show you several times sources that show the station existed. If you don't believe me that's your problem, but it's complete nonsense to continue to repeat those claims and shows how ridiculous this AfD is. I'm not going to say any more and I'm going to !vote Keep because there are clearly sources supporting the railway station, but no matter how much I try you don't believe me. Deus et lex (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have always kept railway stations and there is clear consensus to do so. No longer existing is not a reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is simply not true. Isolated minor rail stations are typically deleted or redirected, e.g. Articles for deletion/Campstone, Arizona, Articles for deletion/Fox, Arizona, Articles for deletion/Bear, Arizona, Articles for deletion/Willaha, Arizona, Articles for deletion/Manzoro, Arizona, Articles for deletion/Bromela, California.Pontificalibus 08:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Was going to suggest a merge to Nundah, New South Wales as often is the case with smaller railway stations in NSW, but is no such article and seemingly no such place exists. As the article is entirely reliant on a WP:SPS, then delete with no prejudice it being created in the future if properly sourced. Vusutonary (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, have you read any of the above discussion where I have shown that there are more sources beyond what is in the article, and shown why a deletion is inappropriate? I'd be really grateful if you could reconsider your !vote, it's really annoying when people don't read things properly. Deus et lex (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, and what's wrong with a merge to the railway line that I've suggested above? Deus et lex (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment For all of the talk and your attacking editors who disagree with you, not one attempt has been made to improve the article itself. Redirecting an uncited article isn't the solution, what it needs is to be cited with WP:RS and expanded to be considered notable, all it states at the moment is its opening and closing years. The AfD has been running for a week, without a clear consensus, so will probably remain open for another week. So there is ample time for it to be expanded if cites exist that will enhance its chance of survival. Vusutonary (talk) 10:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment -, AfD is not cleanup and it isn't assessed on the state of the article - the question is whether the page it is notable. I have been trying to show that it is is and have put forward sources that show that. I'd be grateful if you could take that into account rather than just telling me to clean up the page. Deus et lex (talk) 10:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Regardless of what you think an AfD is or isn't, as things stand, there is a reasonable chance that this article won't be around in a couple of weeks without some improvement. So the best way to enhance its chances of survival is to actually improve it, rather than arguing points of order. Vusutonary (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Go  Phightins  !  12:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete It's a myth that we usually keep stations that don't satisfy GNG - we don't, and this one doesn't. I've surfed through numerous newspaper articles via trove.nla.gov.au and found only passing mentions, mostly in connection with how small and unimportant the station was.Pontificalibus 19:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment -, what's wrong with a redirect to the Main North Line article as I've suggested above? Deus et lex (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nundah Station is not mentioned in the line article, and it’s hard to see how it could be shoe-horned in - why would that article contain a sentence about this very minor defunct station when it doesn’t even mention many of the more significant stations? —--Pontificalibus 06:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , it's already in the infobox, so a redirect there makes more sense than just deleting the article altogether. Deus et lex (talk) 07:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So it is, although it was well-hidden in the route map template. I wouldn't object to a redirect but the mention in the Main North Line article would need to be sourced and should probably indicate that the station no longer exists, neither of which are accommodated in the current template mention.Pontificalibus 08:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - I note per WP:RAILOUTCOMES railway stations that aren't notable are generally redirected to the line or system they are on. I'm happy to add some sourcing to the Main North Line article if that is the outcome (as it should be). Deus et lex (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect>>>Main North railway line, New South Wales Djflem (talk) 16:52, 18 March 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.