Demons Bridge railway station: Of the three sources, two are trivial mentions and one does not mention the station at all.  A BEFORE search does not find anything more substantial.  My bold redirect to Clarence Railway was removed by the article's creator.  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 19:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations , Transportation ,  and United Kingdom .  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 19:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP: Consistency and per WP: Notable .  As it's got coverage in quite a few books and articles.  DragonofBatley ( talk ) 17:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What books?  None are cited in the article and you haven't given any examples.  And there is no policy or guideline called consistency, it is a disambig page where none of the mentioned pages have anything to do with "keeping articles because other articles happen to exist".  It seems like you're making up things to support retaining the article.  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 13:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It existed at one point and is documented to have.  So you should get over it and accept it was once around when ROF Aycliffe existed.  Personal feelings?  Is it feeling oriented when arguing somewhere existed at one point.  DragonofBatley ( talk ) 08:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Since you feel the need to copy-paste the same incoherent arguments across multiple AfDs, I will copy my refutation of your "arguments": I don't need to "get over" anything, train stations are not notable on Wikipedia simply by virtue of once existing, per community consensus .  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 12:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stillington railway station about related article Stillington railway station .  I'm personally of the opinion that these two articles, plus other similar ones should be considered collectively.  There are some references in reliable sources.  Per @ Garuda3 : 's comments on the other article's deletion discussion it doesn't make sense to my mind to delete this station's article and introduce inconsistency breaking adjacent article's navigation templates.  └ UkPaolo / talk ┐ 16:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you and even @ Trainsandotherthings feels they should be deleted and hes not even in the UK 😂.  Pmsl DragonofBatley ( talk ) 20:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you act like a grown up, please?  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 12:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per nomination.  The arguments above are thoroughly unconvincing, relying on made up policies and personal feelings.  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 13:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It existed at one point and is documented to have.  So you should get over it and accept it was once around when ROF Aycliffe existed.  Personal feelings?  Is it feeling oriented when arguing somewhere existed at one point.  DragonofBatley ( talk ) 08:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as per nomination would be the best choice here.   While the station itself is notable only on a local level, the railway it once served is notable enough for a Wikipedia page.  TH1980 ( talk ) 22:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete After careful consideration of the content and sourcing of the article on Demons Bridge railway station, it is evident that significant concerns exist regarding its notability under Wikipedia's guidelines.  The station appears to lack substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish its significance.  While the topic is of local interest, the article does not meet the general notability guideline (GNG) due to insufficient verifiable information.  Therefore, the recommended action is delete.  This decision aligns with Wikipedia's core content policies, ensuring that articles reflect topics of encyclopedic significance with adequate sourcing.  Alternative actions such as merge or redirect are not feasible given the current state of the article and the lack of related content to integrate or redirect towards.  Yakov-kobi ( talk ) 15:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Strike out AI-generated comment.  Owen× ☎ 12:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You wrote this with ChatGPT, didn't you?  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 12:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Clarence Railway .  The two keep ! votes have failed to show that this is treated significantly in independent reliable secondary sources.  I see a claim that "it's got coverage in quite a few books and articles." but at AfD we need to examine the sources and none have been presented, and I don't see any in searches.  I do note that, since the AfD notice was added, two sources were added to the page.  These are [4] a website for local history (disused) railway enthusiasts, which names the contributer but is unclear on its sources and editorial oversight.  I would consider whether it is essentialy a WP:SPS but since the mention of Demon Bridge is passing, there is no need to consider that one further.  The other new source is [5] which tells us: Two new stations, Simpasture and Demons Bridge, were opened on the former Clarence Railway .  Again a passing mention.  Sources need to contain significant coverage sufficient that an article on the subject can be written.  These don't, none others have been found.  This should be deleted, but the redirect is an acceptable ATD as it is a disused station on that railway.  Clarence Railway is the appropriate page to mention this station.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:12, 20 June 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