Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stillington 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. Owen× ☎ 23:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stillington railway station

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails GNG. Of the three sources, one is a trivial mention and two do not mention the station at all. A BEFORE search does not find anything more substantial. My bold redirect to Clarence Railway was removed by the article's creator. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Additiomal sources have been added. Deleting just one station article on a line doesn't make a good reader experience as it creates inconsistency and breaks the adjacent stations navigation templates. Garuda3 (talk) 08:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Garuda3. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Garuda3, I especially agree that we should not delete just one of the stations on this line. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 18:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Garuda3@Necrothesp@UkPaolo: The additional sources that have been added still do not add up to a GNG pass. None of the sources have significant coverage of the station: three of the six don't mention it at all, and the other three have only trivial mentions or a few bullet points. See the source analysis:

Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Pi.1415926535
https://books.google.com/books?id=VE5CAQAAIAAJ&q=stillington+railway+station+clarence+railway	Trivial mentions of the location	✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-61853202	Does not mention the station	✘ No
https://books.google.com/books?id=1xdKAQAAMAAJ&q=stillington+railway+station+clarence+railway	~ The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail	~ Partial
https://books.google.com/books?id=8TEEAAAAQAAJ&q=stillington+railway+station+clarence+railway	Does not mention the station	✘ No
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/20205553.rail-stations-open-north-east-2035/	Does not mention the station	✘ No
https://www.stillington-whitton.com/history.php	~ The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

We don't arbitrarily keep articles that fail GNG simply because other articles link to them. When there's a set of existing articles that are very similar, yes, it makes sense to discuss them as a group for consistency (especially if they're marginal on notability). But that's not the case here - this is a newly created article that's a clear GNG fail, and there's no consistency with nearby articles (some of which are at AfD, and others absolutely would not survive AfD). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- @Pi.1415926535 I've been around a while, I do understand how this place operates, and I do hear what you're saying and your concerns. I nevertheless respectfully retain my opinion that this article should be kept, and that our encyclopedia is improved for so-doing. Personally I do find the article to be consistent with articles on other stations on the line, and would be annoyed by the inconsistency of deleting one of these seemingly quite arbitrarily. Clearly folks are entitled to disagree, and express opposing views; that's the purpose of these AfD discussions after all. I'm not sure it is entirely reasonable to state other articles "absolutely would not survive AfD" though, this one appears to be surviving quite well so far... _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 16:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP: Consistency and per WP: Notable. As it's got coverage in quite a few books and articles. DragonofBatley (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2024 (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.