Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Downtown (Capital MetroRail 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 all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown (Capital MetroRail station)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These articles do not meet notability criteria. They are each individual stations for the yet-to-be-opened passenger rail line in Austin, Texas. The stations are not yet open, and even if they are I doubt they are of more than local interest, if that. There has not been significant coverage of these in independent sources, meaning they fail the GNG. Karanacs (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Keep all. Verifiable place of common public interest. "Local interest" is quite OK for wikipedia. At worst, they may be merged into the rail line, but keeping them separate does no harm either: wikipedia is not paper. Mukadderat (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Although they may be verifiable, they do not meet WP:N; much verifiable information is excluded from having an individual article on WP because it is not notable under our definition. Karanacs (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wikipedia is not a guidebook. An article for the system, or maybe one for each major line would be valid, but each individual is not notable. Someidiot (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all', per User:Mukadderat. ----DanTD (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. I can't really say much more than what User:Someidiot has said already. --Shirik (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all per the comments below, of which I was originally unaware. Lesson learned. --Shirik (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. There seems to be an established consensus about such articles for major transit systems, and I see nothing to be gained by reopening such discussions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - There is an established consensus that all rail transit stations are notable. Just by government documents alone that are required on projects of this scale make these stations pass WP:NOTABILITY.--Oakshade (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Government documents wouldn't be independent sources - most are required to get the line built. Our inclusion criteria require that other sources think its important enough to write about - not just the (partial) funding or regulatory source. Karanacs (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per pre-established consensus on the inherent notability of rail stations. oknazevad (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Oakshade. Mackensen (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed rail stations don't normally cut the mustard in terms of notability, planned stations are normally only notable in the context of the line/extension/system they are part of (which depends largely on the size of the system) while the plans are in flux. They are certainly individually notable when construction is complete, but when the transition happens is less clear. It is not immediately obvious from the articles what state the stations are in, and there certainly isn't much that is said about them at the moment (I don't know if that is because nothing much more can be said at the moment or whether the articles just aren't particularly complete). A merger into one article would, at present, be perfectly appropriate but it would almost certainly be split again later when they open and more can be said about them - if this is imminent there is no point in merging, but if it is years away then it definitely is (the main article says "postponed indefinitely" so it's probably between the two) So, merge all into one article or keep all. Thryduulf (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record this image of one of the stations doesn't exactly convince me that these station articles violate WP:CRYSTAL. ----DanTD (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please point me to the "established consensus"? Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, Subway and railway lines are acceptable, but individual stations are questionable. . Thanks. Karanacs (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All AfDs of rail stations have ended in "Keep." The only exceptions being proposed ones.--Oakshade (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Judging from what I've read, this is more than just proposed. It's under construction. Orlando's SunRail project isn't even under construction yet, and that article makes it seem like the project is inevitable. ----DanTD (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Fahrer / Team für die Suche eingeben:

Fahrer / Team für die Suche eingeben:

Eisspeedway

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Downtown (Capital MetroRail station)

Downtown (Capital MetroRail station)