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. GNG and SIGCOV met with the recent additons. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voorweg RandstadRail station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Quite a large page written entirely without refs. According to WP:V all unrefed claims can be deleted, which would mean deletion. Seems like there has been plenty of time to verify, now is time to WP:TNT until the page can be rewritten according to the policies of en.wiki JMWt (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Netherlands. JMWt (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The deletion rationale here is completely incorrect - an unsourced article can still be notable, and there's nothing in the article that is contentious per WP:V. Notability runs with the topic, not with the content on the page. I haven't been able to find anything which shows this is clearly notable yet, though, because of all the station spam you now get when you search - showing notability will likely involve the Dutch papers. SportingFlyer T·C 16:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I refer you to WP:V

  Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it.

and

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

and

Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. JMWt (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having an unsourced article has never been a deletion rationale. You still have to make sure the topic is not notable. SportingFlyer T·C 17:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: nevermind the V criteria, this isn't a notable place. Not an historic structure, no coverage that I can find (only five hits in all of Gnews, only mentioning the place). Not even meeting GNG at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I added references that show notability of the station and provide sources for the information provided.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ruud and the GNG. While this is currently a light rail station, it has mostly served as a railroad (i.e. heavy rail) station. In NL, these will be notable, unless only a stop. gidonb (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Which of the newly added sources show that the topic meets the WP:GNG, please? JMWt (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The Trouw is a reliable, independent source. I added an article in Zoetermeer Nieuws, a local paper. The other references are information sources. A challenge is to filter the large number of hits. The Google search "Voorweg" AND "Randstadrail" gives almost 5k hits, most of which are not very useful to show notability. The reason why I put up a fight for this one is that the article RandstadRail is considered of mid-importance for Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains and the almost 100 related articles, mostly about its stations, are part of it. Delete one and you might as well delete 100. A lot of hard work has been put in these very informative articles. I´ll do my best to keep them. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In my opinion neither of those are in enough depth to meet the GNG. JMWt (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, your opinion is clear and respectable. However, the relevant notability guideline is this one. The question is if enough attributable information exists to write a full and comprehensive article about the station. i believe so. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually the relevant standard for inclusion of all articles on en.wiki is the WP:GNG in particular WP:SIGCOV. The expectation generally is of WP:3REFS, which you clearly have not yet offered in this discussion. JMWt (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The topic clearly meets the standard for inclusion you mention. I added another reference, this one from Omroep West. The guideline about stations is very useful. As @Gidonb pointed out, Voorweg is a historic railway station and thus presumably notable. Lightrail stations, as Voorweg is at present, may merit a standalone article if enough attributable information exists. Even interesting quirk or odd bit of trivia may help to establish notability, according to the guideline. Deletion of an article about a station is not an option. I rest my case. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sourcing in the article is just there to get this across the line. SportingFlyer T·C 15:21, 16 February 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.