Deletion of Jones and Beach station

Comment: how can editors be expected to research over 80 articles at one time, lets say 5mins per article (at best a perfunctory search) makes over 3 1/2 hours (not counting coffee/chockie breaks:)), as for throwaway line "most are only stops/a sign and paint only" of a lot of the "deleters" this is irrevelant if there are |sources available, merge/redirect discussions can then be had on each article talkpage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: It's difficult to consider 100 articles as a batch. Some are fairly well-sourced and could pass the GNG. Some apparently have infrastructure beyond a sign, and are discussed in reliable sources.  isn't required, but it's a good idea, and could have teased out some of these issues before a somewhat perfunctory mass nomination. It's disappointing that the nominator didn't engage anyone working in this space first, and I'm a bit puzzled as to why not. The precedents are tricky; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchester Avenue station and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/36th and Market station pointed toward merging in large part because of the copy-paste "X is a stop" nature of the articles, which doesn't hold true for this batch (some are, some aren't). I think it might be a worthwhile endeavor to create a guideline for situations like these, because there are corner cases. I think everyone would agree that physical stations are notable, but what if a light rail line has both physical stations and stops? Ease of navigation might suggest the stops be broken out into their own articles (or not, anchors could handle that well enough
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)