Gravel Hill tram stop : All the references link to the Transport for London webpage, which is  a) primary, and  b) not WP:SIGCOV .  The content on this article feels like something more suited for Fandom.  A lot of the tram stops on {{ Tramlink RDT }} probably need review as well.  Also, see WP:NTRAINSTATION .  — MATRIX!  ( a good person! ) [ citation unneeded ] 17:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom .  — MATRIX!  ( a good person! ) [ citation unneeded ] 17:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Tramlink with no prejudice against a single article for the route .  Many transport enthusiasts get very emotional about Wikipedia articles on stations and stops, feeling that every station or stop has a right to a full article.  But these articles end up as generic clones all saying the same thing, and all based on the same primary sources.  This doesn't help our readers.  There is a very good reason why bus companies release their timetables as a single table, not a set of slips of paper, one for each stop, each saying something along the lines of "Jones Street Bus stop is a bus stop on line 23, preceded by Ink street and followed by King's avenue, and is operated by Mercedes-Benz Citaro buses painted in a green livery. The Jones Street bus stop primarily serves passengers alighting or embarking at Jones Street and traveling to other locations that aren't Jones Street but that can also be reached by big green buses on line 23, possibly involving getting off the bus and interchanging to something else" .  Where a station has history, notable events, and secondary coverage, give it an article.  Where it doesn't, write a single article about the entire route.  Elemimele ( talk ) 19:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Broader discussion needed .  Many articles about Tramlink stops are similar in quality to this one and they should be discussed as a complete set.  With one exception, the new-build stops were built and opened at the same time so the available sourcing is likely going to be pretty similar for all of them and the same people are going to know what exists and where to find it.  Leaving this as a redlink is simply not going to happen (it's obviously a plausible search term, and afaik no AfD about a railway station or tram stop article with no verifiability issues has resulted in a "delete" outcome, only "keep", "merge" or "redirect"), so the questions are whether to merge or redirect and what the target should be, but as the only plausible targets that currently exist are Tramlink (too large to merge anything too, to high level to be useful) and List of railway stations and tram stops in Croydon (also too broad and not suitable as a merge target) a new article will need to be written ( possible title: List of Tramlink stops ) to contain the clearly encyclopaedic information (at minimum the opening date, location and entry/exit figures) a merge is in practice what needs to happen if the article can't be expanded (I've not looked to see what coverage not in the article already exists).  However rather than having the identical discussion about the majority of the 39 stops we should have one single discussion that determines which stops have sufficient coverage for standalone articles and which don't, and what the overview article looks like.  Thryduulf ( talk ) 18:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Thryduulf : I like the idea, maybe it would be a good to construct a notability table of all the tram stops and depots, and then make a mass nomination.  We can probably use Fandom as a starting point for List of Tramlink stops .  — MATRIX!  ( a good person! ) [ citation unneeded ] 21:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep pending a broader discussion per Thryduulf.  There is no situation in which deleting a single article of a tightly defined set (such as the 39 tram stops of this system) makes sense.  Either all are notable (my suspicion, given the amount of public discussion that likely went into the project), or only the National Rail interchanges are notable, or only those at current/former National Rail stations (about half) are notable.  But there's no reasonable possibility that only this single station is not notable, so it makes no sense to AfD it alone.  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 21:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Pi.1415926535 : "All are notable" I doubt it.  Most stops like this one are ... well ... just stops.  Nothing has ever really happened to them.  Would you give a bus stop an article?  I have no prejudice against something like List of Tramlink stops .  The exact same thing happened to London buses a few years ago - a lot of the routes were purged for not being notable and were replaced by List of bus routes in London .  But yeah, I support broader discussion — MATRIX!  ( a good person! ) [ citation unneeded ] 18:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not about the size of the stop; it's about whether there's sufficient coverage to pass GNG.  Articles I've taken to GA include a "station" with no platform , a station with a small platform that lasted only a year , a station with nothing but bus shelters , tram stops very similar to this one , and indeed bus stops - all of which have plenty of coverage.  In the modern era, planning and construction of major transit lines tends to generate sufficient press coverage that even individual tram stops often meet GNG, particularly if it goes through multiple revisions due to public pressure.  I can't personally verify whether any individual Tramlink stop meets GNG - I don't have access to UK newspapers or relevant books/magazine - but I suspect that an editor with the relevant knowledge and source access could very well find sufficient coverage to pass GNG.  In any case, the most important point here is that taking a single member of a defined set to AfD almost never makes sense.  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 22:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep at least for now.  Not sure why Fandom is being brought up here - Rail infrastructure is as encyclopaedic as anything else.  The Tramlink articles should be discussed as a whole.  Garuda3 ( talk ) 15:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Garuda3 : This is a lot like the purge of London Bus routes.  Also, you say "Rail infrastructure is as encyclopaedic as anything else".  These tram stops have like no reliable sources or SIGCOV.  They are not notable just because they are tramp stops, see WP:NTRAINSTATION .  But yeah, I would say broader discussion is required on review.  — MATRIX!  ( a good person! ) [ citation unneeded ] 18:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And quite a few London bus routes have been recreated as it turned out they were notable.  Garuda3 ( talk ) 23:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Garuda3 : After doing some GNG review on the stops (feel free to contribute and correct me btw), a lot more than I thought were notable.  However, there's still a decent chunk (like the London Buses) that aren't notable.  — MATRIX!  ( a good person! ) [ citation unneeded ] 16:30, 1 December 2023 (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: keep