Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanhouse lane 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. It's snowing. There being no valid reason for deletion, it could also be a speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Edgepedia (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Tanhouse lane railway station

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is not part of any of the relevant WikiProjects, did not cite any sources in its creation, has poor formatting and sentence fragmentation, and is a stub. I do not see the significance of this article's content. It is also an orphan, indicating that it is likely insignificant. Jackson Peebles (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  04:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like to thank the people who have turned my initial "get it going" offering into something to be proud of. I am not precious, I put it on so that blind references to Tanhouse Lane Station in other Wiki screens had something to attach to, but I was put out that the first I hear from the Wiki people is a threat, not exactly encouraging! It looks like we've all woninthe end, warm thanks once again. Dave  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidAHull (talk • contribs) 14:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - none of the nominator's arguments are in any way criterion for deletion. Articles are not required to be part of WikiProjects; lacking references is fixable, as is poor formatting and grammar, and AfD is not for cleanup; being a stub is not a reason for deletion, as is claiming it seems insignificant; being an orphan is also not a reason for deletion. If the nominator can provide a policy-based reason for deletion, the article can be speedily renominated. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. In addition to The Bushranger's comments, I've now fixed all of the identified problems (other than it being a stub, which is still not a reason for deletion). Thryduulf (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I should also note that I've moved the article to the correct capitalisation of Tanhouse Lane railway station. Thryduulf (talk) 08:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * SNOW Keep. If it hadn't been clear from the outset that this was a real place on a historic railway, it is now. All kudos to Thryduulf for such nice work tidying up the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - seems notable enough. Simply south...... eating shoes for just 7 years 14:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, trout nominator for not providing a single reason for deletion, and making a solely WP:IDONTLIKEIT nom. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 14:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep -- We have 1000s of such articles.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep we do indeed have thousands of such articles; but I shouldn't use WP:OTHERSTUFF as an argument. Nevertheless, three of us (Thryduulf; myself; and Lamberhurst) have to this since it was AFDd (and I've not finished yet), and in the space of a few hours it's been put into somewhat better shape than some (much older) articles about stations on the same line (e.g. Halewood, Padgate or Chassen Road). -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Railway stations are invariably considered to be notable. In what way is "not part of any of the relevant WikiProjects" a criterion for deletion? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as railway stations ARE notable. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  18:55, 22 April 2013 (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.