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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anaheim Canyon (Metrolink station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Does not meet the general notability guideline. I found no significant coverage of the station. TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 03:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I understand the reason for the request but almost if not every railway staion in the UK has an article about it even if only a stub. I would suggest keeping this would aid consistency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wintonian (talk • contribs) 03:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Consistency does not overrule WP:GNG. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 03:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True but then a large amount of articles like: Whitchurch railway station (Hampshire), Sway railway station, Combe railway station, Dean railway station, to name a few would fail on the same bases. Is there no history that could be added? --Wintonian (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is normal in most major cities to have articles on every railway and rapid transit station. Those stations that don't have article lack them not because they aren't notable but simply because no one has written them yet. Dew Kane (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just because there are other similar articles does not mean this one should be kept. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 04:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:OSE - 'Precedent in usage' --Wintonian (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silverseren^C 04:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silverseren^C 04:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have added a number of sources that discuss the station itself and also an event, a train collision, that occurred there. Silverseren^C 04:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All but one of the sources added are trivial mentions of the station. There is no significant coverage. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 08:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG's example of "trivial" is a "one sentence mention" of a topic in a source about another topic. In this case, the sources are primarily about this topic and far beyond the scope of "one sentence mention."--Oakshade (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the precedent in usage around Wikipedia has been that railroad stations are inherently notable. oknazevad (talk) 07:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Precedent does not supersede the notability guideline. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 08:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As Wintonian noted above, precedent is recognized as part of WP:OSE. And WP:GNG is a guideline, not policy. It's following isn't a steadfast requirement, and when consensus exists to expand beyond it, that consensus rules. After all, WP:Consensus is a policy. oknazevad (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Heavy-rail stations meet notability guidelines and are kept in deletion debates. It's called consensus. Mackensen (talk) 11:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per oknazevad and Mackensen. ----DanTD (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there is consensus that heavy-rail stations are considered notable. Arsenikk ^(talk) 14:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Indeed, an example of a minor station at WP:GA is Upminster Bridge tube station. (Keep). Simply south (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Consensus has always found rail stations inherently notable. Never has one been deleted (I recall a tram stop one time, but that's it). It is much better for this project when consensus decides that major categories like this should have articles than to flesh out the notability merits of the thousands that exist resulting in a colossal waste of editors' time. --Oakshade (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep its over.--Milowent (talk) 03:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Google news and Google book search at the top of the AFD, show one hit each. But that doesn't matter since common sense indicates projects like this are notable, and you don't need some reporter or anyone else telling you that. Dream Focus 23:46, 13 April 2010 (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.