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.
Speedy Keep. Lots of sources (including at the above two searches, for starters). I would suggest the nom withdraw his nomination, and follow wp:before next time prior to nominating an article for AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs work, such as more careful placement of references, which, at the moment, do not always match the information in the preceding sentence. But this is a historic station, possibly a first of its type, and I see no reason for deleting the article.--Gilabrand (talk) 09:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A good point as to the article need work. The fault is all mine. Fearing people might not look at the refs, I toss 1-2 dozen in w/some text. Where you cannot see them as supporting the text, it may be those articles that don't show all of the text on the page. I had thought I faithfully reflected what I could see (which in some books is more than you can see from the ref). But my additions were not artful--everyone should feel free to take a crack at fixing it if they like. No pride of authorship at all on this one.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2009 (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.