Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stations with no exit Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stations_with_no_exit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions, while in the majority, make weak (or no) arguments: there is broad community consensus that all article topics must have substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources (WP:GNG). Only one "keep" opinion even cites a source, and it is not even really about this topic, but about a subtopic ("exchange stations"). Apart from that, nobody else has found any coverage approaching the requirements of WP:GNG. Sandstein 18:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stations with no exit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this list topic is in any way notable as a group. Fram (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep interesting topic. Given time I'm sure sources could be found to support the entries in this list. NemesisAT (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not really convincing... Individual entries may have sources, but you need sources that addess the topic as a group. Fram (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Currently the article doesn't cite any sources at all, whether for the individual stations or as a group. If the article is kept it should probably be renamed to something like Railway stations without public access to clarify what these are. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "I'm sure sources can be found!" without identifying any such sources is worthless and a waste of everyone's time. I am unconvinced this is encyclopedic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per reasons for original PROD (I was going to PROD this article, but Fram beat me to it by a few seconds) and nom. The fact that it is an "interesting topic" is not a valid policy reason to keep this article. Singularity42 (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Singularity42: You used "del" in the edit summary, and your text indicates you are arguing for deletion, but you wrote "Keep" as well. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Facepalm Because I'm half-asleep and wrote "Keep" instead of "Delete". Fixed now. Singularity42 (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge The article overlaps in scope with Special-purpose railway stations in the United Kingdom, for which see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special purpose UK railway stations. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would also support a merge with the above article as an alternative to deletion provided the information contained in this one is retained. NemesisAT (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  An issue to be resolved in this case is that while Special-purpose railway stations in the United Kingdom is neatly sized and based on the UK, the current article is based on the World; and would require the combined article to become Special purpose UK railway stationsSpecial purpose UK railway stations; with that article's table potentially becoming unwieldy. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not require inclusion just because it is interesting. --Yoonadue (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is my first article so there are some eye sores around, but there is no comprehensive list of railways stations with no available public entrance (either on Wikipedia or elsewhere). I am fine editing the name for ease of understanding mind. Essexman03 (talk) 11:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Essexman03, I am concerned that this reasoning - while in good faith - is contrary to Wikipedia's policy that Wikipedia is not a webhost. If no reliable, secondary sources have noted this topic as notable elsewhere, then it is not a topic for inclusion as a Wikipedia article yet. Singularity42 (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Note: I've just reverted a controversial move by page creator Essexman03 to Railway stations without public access as that is not a BOLD move to make while the article is under an active AfD, and while not prohibited, it is disruptive, see WP:AFDEQ. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: @Djm-leighpark Apologies for the name change edit; I was not aware that no major changes could be made to alleviate the situation. Mea culpa. Essexman03 (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep One article about such stations in Europe is at Gardner, Nicky; Kries, Susanne (18 September 2020). "Changing trains". Hidden Europe: Letter from Europe. No. 2020/26. Nempnet (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are not reliable secondary sources about this topic in existence, as admitted by the article creator, that is a clear reason to delete this article. Wikipedia lists should not be based on original research or original synthesis of sources to create a new topic that has not been covered reliably in the past.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The (Gardner & Kries, 2020) source introduced by Nempnet seems to give implications for alternate nomenclature such as: exchange-only stations. That leads on to private stations (Such at MGWR's Clonhugh for George Forbes, 7th Earl of Granard (Rowledge, 1995, p.164)) and viewing-only stations perhaps more common on tourist/heritage railways; all and perhaps more being encompassed by special purpose stations. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Djm-leighpark raises a good point here. If this article is kept, a name change is definitely in order. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Seems like a notable topic. Easy enough to source. Rename to List of stations with limited access or something similar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another Necrothesp vote without any evidence to back it up, a rather bad habit that. Fram (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you're saying that the lack of exits from these stations is not sourced? I think you'll find it is quite clearly sourced. But, in my opinion, a really bad habit is to continually attack anyone who disagrees with you. AfD is about opinion, not bureaucracy. I have expressed mine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, that's obviously not what I am saying, but please keep trying. Or read the AfD nomination instead. And no, AfD is not about opinion: opinion which isn't supported by facts is commonly disregarded by closers and not taken into account when deciding upon consensus. I only attack opinions from people who should know better but continue with the same empty statements. Fram (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia would be a much happier place if you didn't attack anyone's opinion. Would it really be that difficult to just let editors post at AfD without lambasting everyone who disagrees with your views? Come on, it's not that hard. Try it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wouldn't it be a much better place if you didn't equate yourself with "everyone"? Fram (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can't just keep an article solely based on "seems like a notable topic". Link us a few sources covering the topic in detail and maybe then you will persuade people. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    We can if there is a consensus to do so and/or folks effectively argue why it improves the encyclopedia, per WP:IGNOREALLRULES. NemesisAT (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You would vote keep on anything. You vote keep 95.5% of the time [1], often failing to link to any sources to justify such votes, and you're doing it again here. You argument is nothing more than WP:ILIKEIT. The keep voters here have consistently failed to explain why this article meets guidelines for list notability. WP:IIAR. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And you vote keep only 11% of the time. Neither statistic is relevant here. NemesisAT (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I just checked and there are actually enough electrons in the universe now that we can keep an article that seems like a notable topic. WP:NOTPAPER. Maybe there isn't a cumulative list out there but surely individual stations with "No Exit"[2] have to have coverage. Essexman03 with his first page made the same foolish mistake that I did, which is to assume that putting an article into mainspace was an invitation to veteran editors to help improve it. But instead, the welcoming committee here AfD'd his first article after less than a fortnight. BBQboffin (talk) 07:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Userfy - Interesting topic, but that alone isn't enough for an article. Fails WP:NLIST. I was on the fence, but the complete failure of any of the keep !votes to put forward viable policy-based arguments (except insofar as IAR can support any combination of words) is what convinced me. Not opposed to userfication if Essexman thinks there's sourcing out there and wants more time to bring it together. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Create template I am not sure that I can comment on notability of the page and if it should be deleted but to me it is an interesting list as it is a nice way of getting to the really interesting bit which is the individual stations which already exist as pages. Why not create a bottom of the page template with the individual stations on it. That way there is a nice link between the individual stations that are like this and people can easily discover more of them. You could also look for trains that only run on race days to add to the template.Gusfriend (talk) 08:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well Template:Special purpose UK stations and Category:Railway stations in Great Britain without public access so there is certainly scope for this. I suggest going ahead and creating such a template and/or category as that's independent of whether this article is kept or not. Thryduulf (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep interesting and helpful. well written. --Qwertzu111111 (talk) 07:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename List of railway stations with limited access and include Category:Railway stations in Great Britain without road access, probably including Trent railway station and others, with appropriate subheaders. Very worthy topic. Djflem (talk) 12:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Djflem While I can't rename an article (as I've been put down because of this before), I most certainly will add your list which you've found. Thanks! Essexman03 (talk) 09:57, 01 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think name change and expansion is appropriate as well and is probably better discussed on the talk page. But of research interest here goes:

Andrews, Kate. "The most remote railway stations in the world". Rail Europe.

Alexander, Colin; Siton, Alon (2018), The Stephenson Railway Legacy, Amberley Publishing Limited, ISBN 9781445676555, . The 1846 York & Newcastle Railway station at Richmond in North Yorkshire had no road access... Djflem (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support this as an alternative to deletion. NemesisAT (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2022 (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.