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.

Humboldt Street (LIRR station)[edit]

The result was Nomination withdrawn following article improvement. Mjroots (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article fails WP:Notability. The policy states "significant coverage" in "reliable sources". Ref 3 does not establish notability as it is simply a photo. Source 2 is a trivial mention and therefore not significant coverage. Reference 1 is self-published and should not be considered a reliable source for the purpose of establishing notability, because the author of the website does not show that they are an expert on the topic. Appable (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, Reference 3 proves the very existence of the station, because that photo is a map showing that station. Source 1 may be an SPS, but it does rely on noted railroad historians for info. Having said that, perhaps the best thing you could do with it is merge into the Evergreen Branch article, which currently is merged into the Manhattan Beach Branch article, although I've been working on a sandbox for a separate article on the Evergreen Branch for a while. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I should rephrase my claim on Ref 3: it establishes the existence, but not all things that exist are notable. Good point on Source 1 as well. I'll discuss merging the article on the talk page, and see what other editors think (or does that happen if the consensus is to merge? I'm not sure). Regardless, I change my position to Merge. Appable (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Railway stations fall into one of those few categories of articles that we keep as long as their existence can be established. Always have done. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Question I thought precedence is irrelevant according to the rules. If the precedent is long-lasting, can't you edit the policy to take it into account? I agree with you, but not out of any policy-related opinion, just preference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 08:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to WP:RAILOUTCOMES usually stations survive a discussion. However, WP:STATION clarifies that a station is notable only if it has sufficient information for its own article. In the time of the discussion, the article has been expanded greatly, so I think Keep is the best option (revision from previous Delete and Merge stance). Appable (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Presumably that means you're withdrawing your nomination? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, it does. Though I don't know if there's some way to close it myself. Appable (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Precedent is most certainly not irrelevant, since results of previous AfDs reflect consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article now fits the guidelines to be kept per WP:STATION. Epic Genius (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2015 (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.