New Cassel station : A redirect/merge to New Cassel, New York would be fine.  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 19:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and New York .  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 19:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Courtesy ping Thryduulf who deprodded.  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 19:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Quoting from my deprodding rationale If sources cannot be found this should be merged or redirected, probably to the article about the line, rather than deleted .  It seems the nominator actually agrees that this should not be deleted, so this seems like an inappropriate AfD.  Thryduulf ( talk ) 19:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Thryduulf : I don't have any strong opinion about whether the article is deleted, redirected, or merged (with what meager information is available).  However, it seems clear to me that it lacks the notability for an independent article.  Given that, I'm confused why AfD wouldn't be an appropriate venue for the community to decide which of those options is best.  What would you have recommended I do instead?  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 20:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] AfD should be reserved for when you are actively advocating deletion.  In other situations either boldly merge/redirect or start a discussion on the talk page (with notifications to WikiProjects and/or target talk pages as desired).  Thryduulf ( talk ) 20:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What happens is someone then shows up to contest it and say it's a "stealth deletion", so forgive us if we choose to take these articles to AfD.  There's no way to avoid people complaining, so I'm afraid you will have to get used to seeing train stations at AfD.  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 21:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If someone contests a bold action, start a formal discussion.  If they contest a discussion to merge or redirect as a "stealth deletion" then they're wrong to put it bluntly - you're not proposing deletion and you've (hopefully) advertised the discussion in the appropriate places.  Thryduulf ( talk ) 22:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] One of the points in favor of AfD is people are notified far more than with any other method of merger or redirection.  I always post notification to WT:TRAINS when I propose a merge, and unfortunately those discussions are typically ill-attended.  I have been accused (by other editors, not you) of "stealth deletion" by boldy redirecting articles, even though I always respect a challenge and follow up by initiating a discussion.  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 10:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Main Line (Long Island Rail Road) : not notable by itself.  Owen× ☎ 20:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per nomination.  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 21:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to either New Cassel, New York , or Main Line (Long Island Rail Road)#Stations per nom.  Epicgenius ( talk ) 14:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually, I'm striking part of my ! vote.  On further thought, it would be best if we kept any info about non-notable or marginally-notable stations in the page about the line itself.  I see that KG613 has expanded the article, though, and am willing to re-evaluate my ! vote.  Epicgenius ( talk ) 13:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Pi.1415926535 : Sorry for not getting to this earlier (I have been busy with job applications)-I found some more sources.  I don't think this should be merged or deleted. -- Kew Gardens 613 ( talk ) 16:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Kew Gardens 613 : I really appreciate the added sources; unfortunately, it still doesn't pass GNG.  Of the eight sources, seven do not provide significant coverage, while Arrts Archives is self-published and does not appear to qualify as a reliable source.  Merging would allow the relevant information to be retained.  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 22:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Based on what you are saying, 99% of all closed train station articles should be deleted and most open station articles should be deleted.  While I really wouldn't like that, we should clarify what is/not notable in WP:STATION .  What would qualify as significant coverage in your view?  Kew Gardens 613 ( talk ) 23:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Kew Gardens 613 : The relevant section of the notability guideline is WP:SIGCOV .  Two different RFCs ( August 2019 and July 2022 ) had clear consensus that train stations do not have inherent notability and are subject to the general notability guideline .  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 23:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To be clear, then, based on those RFCs, are you suggesting that most station articles should be deleted, since it will be very hard to find info beyond what I found for this article.  Kew Gardens 613 ( talk ) 23:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I can only speak to US stations in this regard, but no, I don't think "most" - or even many - should be deleted on notability grounds.  As a general rule of thumb, any American mainline station that was open into the public ownership era tends to have sufficient coverage in newspapers and/or historical works to pass GNG.  I've only ever found a few exeptions, such as Metra's Heritage Corridor Halsted station (which was redirected without loss of any information).  Similarly, NRHP-listed stations and major pre-public-ownership stations tend to also be easy GNG passes.  Collectively, those represent the vast majority of the articles we have about American mainline stations.  There's only a relatively small number of articles like this that are unlikely to ever pass GNG, and most (like this) can be merged/redirected without loss of any pertinent information.  This article is a particularly obscure station: it had a short life, pre-1900, with limited service.  It is by no means representative of most other station articles.  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 00:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Main Line (Long Island Rail Road)#Stations .  I can't find any sources with significant coverage that would support a standalone article through Google or multiple historic newspaper archives, though a redirect to the list entry is appropriate.  Complex / Rational 17:58, 27 May 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.

Discussion outcome: redirect