Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tipton 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)  Gongshow  Talk 05:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Tipton Station

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Seems to fail Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines. Wild Wolf (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - needs improving to establish what is important about it and untangle the somewhat breathless prose. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is about a trolley station, so Notability (organizations and companies) doesn't apply. At any rate, the station was part of a notable trolley system and has plenty of references. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 22:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Well documented article that needs improvements in tone. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Tipton Park is also well documented, so I added a redirect for it. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per above keeps.  Note to nom -- When you nominate an article for deletion, and all !voters agree that the article should be kept, there may be a message in it for you. I also see that through this moment, in your wikipedia career you've !voted at 24 AfDs that have closed, all delete !votes (which is fine in and of itself), most as the nom.  But -- only 1 of those AfDs ended up as a redirect, and none of them were closed as a delete.  Perhaps you might give thought as to whether this should slow your nomination activity, until you have a firmer sense as to how the community construes our notability guidelines.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I think your data is suspect. I see 4 of his AfD nominations on January 9th alone at WP:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 9 where the result was merge for all of them &mdash; not a single keep !vote to be found in any of the four. And that's the only page I looked at… Mojoworker (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Mo. I'm not sure what you find suspect in my above post.  I indicated that in 24 AfDs that had closed, all of which he had !voted delete in (most as the nom), only 1 of the AfDs ended up as a redirect, and none of them was closed as a delete.  The data supports that statement, and is not at odds with your observation.  In short -- while nom !voted that the text of 24 articles should be deleted, in all but 1 instance the text of the articles was kept either via a keep or via a merge of the text into another article.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Unlike much of the other stuff created by the now blocked User:Target for Today that have been, or are in the process of being deleted, this one seems to be worth keeping. Mojoworker (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep If the nominator makes the same statement in all of these related AFDs, as do those saying to keep them, perhaps it'd be best to just merge them together. Article has references, and enough valid content to justify itself as an article.  Don't delete/merge/redirect it.   D r e a m Focus  00:37, 31 January 2012 (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.