Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roebling (River Line 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. j⚛e deckertalk 18:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Roebling (River Line station)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No references verify the general notability of this station. Therefore it is not a suitable subject for a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment the decision for this article could be re-used for other stub articles about tram stops on the River Line (New Jersey Transit). AadaamS (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment if there's anything verifiable to say about non-notable stops on this line it should be merged to River Line (New Jersey Transit) and the affected standalones deleted. AadaamS (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note Nominators should not !vote in deletion discussions; it is assumed that they wish for deletion based on being the nominator. As such this is a duplicate comment and should be struck. oknazevad (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * True, I have changed to a comment. It isn't a vote as such, it's a recommendation and admins will have the final say. AadaamS (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per longstanding precedent regarding train stations. See the years of discussions in the archives. The currently worded guideline (not policy) fails to account for the reality of Wikipedia practice (not unheard of when the guidelines are written by a few editors and their talk pages are rarely visited by the hundreds of editors who edit thousands of pages; that's the true WP:CONLIMITED. oknazevad (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The subject of this article isn't a station, it's just a stop on the line. There's no major or historical station building and no waiting hall according to this photo. I see no reason why the WP:GNG shouldn't apply to standalone articles on light rail & tram stops. AadaamS (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, many (I might not be wrong if I say most) rail 'stations' in the United States look like this photo. Grade level stations, sometime in the middle of the crossing with no shelter. Those includes heavy commuter rails and long distance rail lines like Amtrak. I don't think the shape of the stations would turn the status to become just stops. Z22 (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, per oknazevad. Additionally, though the article itself has been repeated on every other stop along the River Line, there has been enough material along each stop to distinguish one from the other that can and has been added to each article, including Roebling station. -User:DanTD (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't distiguishability that allows a subject to have a standalone article, it's notability. AadaamS (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Longstanding precedent that railway stations or stops are inherently notable. Even very minor ones, so long as they can be verified. G-13114 (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Inherent notability is misapplied in this case and for every other very non-notable minor stop as well. Inherent notability, such as of train stations like Gare du Nord also mean that notability is easily verifiable. If notability can't be verified by independent sources, then the station simply isn't notable. Notability of some train station simply isn't inherited by minor light rail stops, non-inheritance is a guiding principle in every other AfD discussion and it ought to be applied to rail articles as well. What do you think, and ? AadaamS (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I never involved in the history of debates about inherent notability of rail (heavy or light) stations. This sounds a lot more like the debates of inherent notability of high schools vs. middle/elementary schools. The results of long standing discussions there were that high schools are inherently notable. There is no need to include independent sources. Primary sources for verification purpose are enough for not getting article deleted because there is no need to prove that a particular high school is notable. Coming back to transportation, I think that it is comparable to whether rail stations vs. bus stops are inherently notable. I would say that train stations are, but not bus stops.
 * The reason for me to think that train stations are inherently notable goes to the practice (at least in the United States) of public involvement in the creation of the stations. A new train station will involve multiple rounds of public meetings in multiple municipalities. There are flights for and against trains stations between neighboring towns/cities, etc. Sometime stations have to be moved and the location is typically the name of the each station. Enough analysis goes into the passenger volume for each station. The opening of each train station typically has some sort of media event. In contrary, there is not much public input to the locations of bus stops. No specific analysis for each bus stop and no media event for each bus stop opening. So I would say train stations are likely to be inherently notable. And if so, it may not need to have secondary sources to be cited for the purpose of notability proof. It still need some reliable primary sources for verifiability. Z22 (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Train stations are notable. This is a common outcome and that carries weight. AadaamS is correct that tram stops are generally merged, but light rail, which generally runs on independent right-of-way, is treated as heavy rail in these discussions. Mackensen (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The longstanding consensus is that such stations are inherently notable. While the sourcing could be improved, there's enough here to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability that can't be verified is non-notability. AadaamS (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as all the others state about the stipulation that rail stations are notable. With public work projects such as these and the millions of dollars that go into the planning and building of each stop (yes, they cost millions), it's impossible for works such as feasibility studies, environmental reports and various planning committee reports to not exist.--Oakshade (talk) 06:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Any industrial or office building in any city costs millions to build and require planning permissions. Such reports and studies are enough to verify the existence of a station, but as primary sources they cannot be used to verify its notability. We need WP:RS for that and none have come forth and that itself is an indication that this station isn't (yet) notable. AadaamS (talk) 08:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not all industrial or official building have to do environmental impact reports. If there is any variance for a new building to be approved, it will be done at the zoning or building board which is localized to the specific community. New train stations (at least in the United States) need environmental impact studies, passenger analysis and multiple rounds of public meetings in wider scope (not localized to a specific community). Z22 (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Basically any train station is noteworthy for its own article as others stated. We can improve the article so it's more reliable. MikeM2011 (talk) 07:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as a railway station per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * comment Based on the discussion at WT:TWP I have undone what is is a questionable closure by a new user. Mangoe (talk) 03:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per my recent edits to the article. It is now 563 words of prose, with twelve citations. Starting from zero - this is outside my usual geographic area, and thus outside my personal collection of reference materials - I've pieced together a fairly complete history of both the former PRR station and the modern station. (I'm still looking for scoping studies and construction timeline of the new station, and a better closure date of the old station.) As I posted in WP Trains, if I can do this with an article from scratch, then any editor who's willing to do some research can do it with any train station. If this AfD is to be precedent, let it be that. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking through the sources you added, my opinion is that the one citing 3 million ridership is good for verifying notability of the line as a whole if it was independently verified, but not this individual station. Planning permissions and studies are primary sources. Primary and self-published sources can't verify notability. Primary sources are fine for verifying content of an article, not the notability of its subject. The information would be perfect for Roebling town or River Line articles. You are clearly a much better researcher on this subject than I am and you still haven't managed to solidly verify the notability of this station. I already trawled though Google Books, News and Archives to find notability and failed, so yes I have actually done some research but I didn't succeed in proving notability and that's why I launched this AfD to begin with. This I do for every AfD I have nominated. The very fact that you as a clearly skilled railroad researcher are citing WP:SPS and primary sources instead of WP:RS like New York Times or Railway Gazette is an indication to me that notability is an issue, the outcome of this AfD nonwithstanding. AadaamS (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * For this particular station, I think it should be enough to meet the GNG just by some of the inline citations in the article:
 * Roebling is identified by NJ Future (an organization not related to NJ Transit, the line operator) to be one of only a handful of stations that have the greatest potential for development of TOD projects.
 * The historical picture of station in the 1950s and description of relaunching of the River Line in the Images of America book series (also independent of NJ Transit).
 * The station is the subject of the entire chapter in the document created by Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (independent of NJ Transit).
 * I haven't had a chance to look at more citations, but just the above are enough to convince me of meeting the GNG. Z22 (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi these sources are reliable and they are independent, but they do not verify the notability of this station. This station hasn't won any design awards and it's not a major hub either. Notability would have been verified if the station was the subject in published trade magazines or mainline media like major newspapers. If using anything less than mainline media to prove notability, we needa a whole lot more independent & reliable sources. AadaamS (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What you have said is not inline with WP:GNG. If the sources are reliable and independent, we can write a comprehensive article which meets our major content policies, including WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NOT.  See WP:WHYN. Fame or importance has nothing to do with notability.--Antigng (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fame doesn't imply notability that's true, but importance is exactly what notability is about. Importance implies impact on economy, world history, demographics, art or whatnot. Lack of notability/importance only indicates this station isn't a suitable subject for a standalone article, all those reliable and independent sources are perfect for writing about the stations in the River Line article. AadaamS (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Both per precedent that railway stations that verifiably exist are notable for individual articles and the sources demonstrating the notability of this individual station. Thryduulf (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Regardless of whether this individual station or this set of stations will survive AfD or not, this begs the question of the generally accepted standard of notability for train stations. Some editors mentioned that all stations is notable as per common outcomes. I checked the WP:RAILOUTCOMES but could not find the indication to suggest that there is consensus about about rail stations. It further suggests to go to the WP:STATION essay. It said, "It may be considered that if enough attributable information exists about a station or railway line to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article." That does not say about train stations are presumed to be notable. Also in the Train project page notability essay, it has a very high bar for the infrastructure and buildings (stations included) such that one has to reach the historical status. It also refers back to WP:STATION for the ongoing discussion about the notability. Therefore, there is no clear consensus or clear common outcomes in term of the stations. At the very least, if there is a commonly accepted standard developed by consensus to deviate from the GNG, that should be documented as such at the essay level, or at the WP:GEOFEAT guideline level. If there is no consensus on that yet, the topic of station notability should be specifically discussed, perhaps there. Z22 (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your thought-provoking and useful input. I simply think the GNG should apply to any and all Wikiprojects, including Trains and train stations. Simply declaring train stations exempt from the GNG turns Wikipedia a directory of train stations when it should be an encyclopedia of train stations. We'll see what happens. AadaamS (talk) 11:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, whilst railway stations are presumed to be inherently notable, GNG must still be met. In this case, it is. Mjroots (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Inherent notability to begin with, and GNG are met adequately. K orr u ski Talk 14:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per long-standing consensus and WP:GNG--Antigng (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Whilst this article is likely to be kept - people have found more evidence of this station's notability - the notion of inherent notability of railway stations is circular reasoning. It's impossible to square with the GNG and with our existing deletion processes. An AfD is Wikipedia's usual venue to assess whether or not a topic is notable; it's obviously fallacious to argue at an AfD that we should close it as a "keep" because we don't need to assess the notability because, err, different articles were previously found to be notable at some other AfD. bobrayner (talk) 06:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether you agree with it or not, Wikipedia works on consensus, and consensus, formed over many AfDs, is that some classes of article are inherently notable and are almost never (if ever) deleted. Not many, but a few, and this is one of them (along with secondary schools and universities, to name another couple of examples). It has indeed been argued in the past that maybe these classes shouldn't go to AfD in the first place, but that hasn't yet been agreed. Nonetheless, it is a perfectly valid argument to say that the article should be kept because clear consensus is to keep these classes of article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2015 (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.