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). Clear consensus that the subject, which is inherently notable, can be expanded and thus is not a suitable candidate for deletion, on which the nominator withdrew. WilliamH (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spilsby railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A stub article with no context that has been tagged for quite some time. Is lacking even basic information such as opening/closing dates, details of operator/routes etc. DrFrench (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SOFIXIT. Coverage found in Google (esp. Google Books) indicates that the station was an important landmark in the 19th century. As mentioned in the Prod challenge, the town and rail line links give enough context to fill in the blanks. Sources found for closing dates, but they need to be verified. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Consensus has always found that stations are inherently notable and there's not evidence anywhere consensus is changing. As Gene93k indicates, this is a case for expansion, not deletion. I added a photo, which is a start. --Oakshade (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I've expanded it a bit, I'm sure there's more on the actual station to be unearthed. Black Kite 00:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Being a stub (even a sub-stub) is not a reason for deletion. Stephen Turner (Talk) 06:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article has one fine source already, and even small railway stations are in fact the kind of topic which traditional paper encyclopedias cover. (For example Hallingskeid which has entries in at least two such encyclopedias.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not a good candidate for deletion, since it can be improved through normal editing processes. AfD is not cleanup; in the future, the nominator may want to review DEL and BEFORE before making nominations like this. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination. Since posting the AfD, the article has already been improved beyond all recognition, so I'm happy to withdraw my nomination. I'd also like to add that the nominator (i.e. me) *did* reveiew WP:DEL and WP:BEFORE. I also reviewd WP:AFDP#Transportation and WP:STATION. Until I posted the AfD, the article had no useful information and had been tagged as a stub and requiring improvement since July 2007. I agree that in general railway stations are notable by default, but a closed railway station may not necessarily be notable - especially where there is no context to justify it (e.g. it may have been a temporary station). Being as the article had been left unimproved for so long and had not been picked-up by WikiProject UK Railways it looked like it was a 'hopeless case' article. Inadvertantly, the AfD has prompted others to improve the article to a point where it now deserves to be kept. DrFrench (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2008 (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.