Saltersgate Cottage railway station: Of the two sources, one does not mention the station at all.  The other is a personal website (likely fails WP:RS ) with a total of five sentences about the station.  A BEFORE search does not find anything more substantial.  My bold redirect to Stanhope and Tyne Railway was removed by the article's creator.  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 19:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge pertinent information and photograph into Stanhope and Tyne Railway would be a good idea.  The station itself is not notable enough for a standalone article, but the railway itself is, so that page would be a good home for this info.  TH1980 ( talk ) 03:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And what would go between High Stouk and the next article station?  A redirect breaking the preceding or following station?  It existed at one point and is documented to have.  DragonofBatley ( talk ) 08:28, 17 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 ] Once again, you're making up a non-existent "consistency" policy, this article cites no books, and the citations present do not give significant coverage of the station.  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 14:23, 14 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 on the Stanhope and Tyne Railway even on OS Maps which are a good source.  Just be breaking consistency in the preceding and following stations table in that case.  DragonofBatley ( talk ) 08:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't need to "get over" anything, train stations are not notable on Wikipedia simply by virtue of once existing, per community consensus .  The existence of other stations is irrelevant, we are discussing this station and you have failed to refute any of the points I made above.  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 12:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Cause your claiming it's based on personal feelings.  In what way is it personal feelings?  Its a few wiki editors claiming it is not notable?  Yet it existed beforehand?  So if it didn't exist it be a figment of my imagination.  But it's been documented in books and on OS maps and there's nothing to refute.  If one researches them proper they will be mentioned and recorded but in ones own mind.  Newspapers or journals or a website should not be used as sources or a book.  Or map.  It should be a what?  Government site?  A forum?  A notable book from Charles Dickens?  What should it it be in the mind of @ Trainsandotherthings ?  Enlighten me from one experienced editor to another?  What should an Americans idea of a British railway station be?  also @ Pi.1415926535 and @ TH1980 .  As I'm seeing nothing more than trying to remove articles that I've worked on in my own time and thoroughly researched just for you redirect them cause you don't either agree or know the lines all that well based on your localities internationally and lack of mindset to try and debate until now (Pi.).  It's documented and notable like Crook and High Stouk stations.  Accept it and stop looking for reasons to delete them.  DragonofBatley ( talk ) 20:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ DragonofBatley : Personal attacks are not acceptable.  Instead of arguing and insulting editors, please read Wikipedia:Notability so you understand what "notability" means on Wikipedia.  For something to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, merely existing is not enough.  It needs to have significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.  (Yes, that means that many former railway stations are not notable enough for Wikipedia - it is an encyclopedia, not a railway station database.)  If that significant coverage is not present, you should not create the article in the first place, because it is likely to end up deleted.  Instead, you should add the information to an existing article (like the line or the locality) where appropriate.  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 20:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Pi.1415926535 : , I am not personally attacking anyone.  I asked simple questions and created missing links on Clarence Railway and Stanhope and Tyne Railways railway topography tables.  If I redirected other railway articles, I would be reverted without prior discussion.  I have provided sources from OS maps, books, websites, and other historical sites.  I am not implying that Americans cannot edit British railway articles.  I am simply asking for what should be included in a notable article?  Again keep per WP: Notability (and consistency for railway stations previous and following/terminus) and stopping the topography which has a lot of red links to be completed yet.  DragonofBatley ( talk ) 08:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not personally attacking anyone.  Care to explain this then?  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 12:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Stanhope and Tyne Railway per nomination.  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 14:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] May as well do that to all the stations at Crook and Consett if that's the way to break consistency in the station articles.  Not going to though and actually Disused Stations is an accepted article since it's in depth and uses sources to back it's pages up.  DragonofBatley ( talk ) 08:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Stanhope and Tyne Railway , in line with the nomination.  The arguments for keeping are less than convincing; WP:CONSISTENT links to a dab page, and merely that other stops on this rail line have their own article means very little in light of WP:NTRAINSTATION , (which requires that train stations pass WP:GNG or some other subject-specific notability criteron ).  Coverage may exist in a few books and articles, but trivial mentions of the station don't exactly amount to the WP:SIGCOV that would be required for the GNG.  Even the sorts of railfan sites dedicated to this sort of thing (such as disused-stations ) note that the passenger station may well have never opened, and they tend to draw on very scarce sourcing in doing so.  I'm just not able to find significant coverage of this station from multiple independent reliable sources.  As an alternative to deletion , redirecting the page to the line which purportedly ran through the station seems more appropriate than leaving this standalone article up.  If it's wise, the limited content from this article could be upmerged, and redirecting also publicly preserves this page's history in case sourcing is eventually found or created.  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:36, 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