Deletion of Railway station layout

Comment: It should be possible to write something useful about this subject (e.g., the advantages and disadvantages of stub-end terminals, loops, and so on), but the current article is a rag-bag of indiscriminate examples, unrelated trivia ("Naming of stations far from served town" has nothing to do with "layout"), and the eye-poppingly obvious (sometimes stations are on curves!). Since the material in the "Configurations of stations" and "Terminus" sections of the current train station article would make a far better basis for an article on railway station layout than current article content,  should be invoked
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: I don't think  or  really apply here; anyway, the existence of an essay is no proof of its validity in a deletion argument. My !vote is based on the nom's application of . If any article were to attempt to catalogue this information, it would have to take an entirely different approach of summarising rather than randomly listing. In my view, that's deleting without prejudice to readdressing the subject, though you could call it TNT if you were that way inclined
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:SOFIXIT||WP:TNT||WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: per , as the content here is worthless
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: Article requires improvement, not deletion. Remember, folks, |AFD is not cleanup. And it's a notable topic, so the quality of the article is irrelevant
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP)