Deletion of Ealing Broadway Platform 9

Comment: Fails |notability and |verifiability - A http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22Ealing%20Broadway%20Platform%209%22%20-Wikipedia search turns up nothing useful
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: Are you freaking kidding me?  An article on a ''single platform at a train station?''  Yes,  is important, but we're being had here; this has to be a joke.  Short of a subsequent article being written about the trash can on the left-hand side of the chipped column on Ealing Broadway Platform 9, we have a new Wikipedia record for non-notability and non-verifiability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers (WP:BITE)

Comment: Atgio''', firstly apologies that your start to the Wikipedia experience has not been as easy as it could have been - in fact a bit of a misery. Please feel assured that no-one is against you or your hard efforts, but we are '''not''' a random depository of information. We are an encyclopedia, and as such have policies and guidelines laid down on what is, or is not, the correct content for Wikipedia. Whatever the outcome of this AFD please rest assured that all editors here hope you will continue to contribute. Secondly, Colonel Warden - ss a seasoned Wikipedia editor, which you are, can you not see that "it's not doing any harm" is about a good a rationale as . We get flooded by non-notable information everyday. 99.99999% doesn't "do any harm". It's not a reason for keeping it though
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: In its lede article establishes encyclopedic notability through historical references.  According to wikipedia policy, once notability is established whatever else the article includes so long as , , and  are met is irrelevant. This would include  ''freaking timetable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NPOV||WP:NOR)

Comment: I agree that some of the comments here have been less than helpful, and I'm sorry that a new editor has had a pretty lousy first experience of Wikipedia. But while the article is not entirely without merit, I still can't see any value to keeping a separate article on this individual platform. The timetable information is a fairly textbook example of #DIR|what Wikipedia is not, and apart from the principle that an encyclopaedia is not the same thing as a train timetable, Peterkingiron raises the valid practical point that we could not realistically hope to keep that sort of information accurate and up to date - how many editors are actually going to go round all of our railway articles checking that they're still correct every time a new timetable is published? (If I were feeling sarky, I'd also add that a British railway timetable is the epitome of an |unreliable source, or that as an article about a work of fiction it needs to demonstrate real world notability. ;-p) The stuff about the original sign and the signal cabin is more promising, but there doesn't seem to be any obvious reason whuy it needs to be here rather than in the main Ealing Broadway station (which notes that more than one platform has original signs). Unless there's so much to say specifically about this one platform that it can't reasonably fit into the main article, spinning it off into additional sub articles just makes it harder for the reader to find the information, and risks unnecessary duplication of work. So I say remove the timetable, and merge what can be sourced and isn't there already into the main article Ealing Broadway station article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:RS)

Comment: We had a black comedy of errors today in which the author seemed to misinterpret the AFD template, placed a db-author tag on the article which was then speedily deleted, despite the author's obvious protestations.  The article was then userfied and when the author was notified of this he predictably recreated it and then it was predictably sent back here again.  This |bureaucratic farce is the process of biting newbies which is well critiqued at Wikipedia talk:RFA#Bite the newbies and get rewarded with an adminship|RFA. Common-sense is noticeably absent from this process since this article is quite harmless and does not violate our policies in any way
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:BURO)