Deletion of Success Hill railway station, Perth

Comment: per longstanding precedent on stations in major metropolitan railway systems. #TRAVEL is to prevent Rough Guide style hotel and cafe listings, and does not apply in this case. There is a more relevent ''essay'' at Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations), but as an essay there is no obligation to comply
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: I think the nominator has properly defined a |stub. This is, however, not a #Reasons_for_deletion|reason for deletion. It does not fail ''notability'' and ''reliable sources'' are available about it. Both are true in this case. Agreed with Rebecca
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stub (WP:STUB||WP:DP)

Comment: This is yet another example of the misunderstanding of . And article doesn't fail  if it is currently unverified, but only if it is ''unverifiable''.  is a reason to delete an article if absolutely nothing can be verified, not simply because an editor doesn't see sources placed in the article.  Rail stations are inherently notable and sources exist on all of them (government records, railroad company records, newspapers, hardcover books, etc
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: You keep quoting the |policy of verifiability, but is anything in the article really unverifiable and unreferenced? I'm guessing your point is that there's not much to say about the station, and that may be true, but it seems to me that you're citing a policy to add weight to an argument of questionable notability, when said policy does not apply to such an argument
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)