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 keep. Consensus was stronger for some articles in this batch nomination than others, but on the whole it lent towards keep or redirect and I'm not going to attempt to unpick each one individually. – Joe (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canoe Place station[edit]

Canoe Place station (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)

Minor closed railroad stations without indication of notability. I cannot find any significant coverage of any of them, nor is it likely to exist: none survived into the public ownership era (with attendant coverage in government documents), none have surviving station building, and none are proposed for reopening. The only sources in the articles are fan sites and trivial mentions. For all, I would support keeping redirects to the relevant rail lines. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bartlett and Fireplace stations as those seem to be the most notable based on the current sources i do believe that it is possible to find information about the other stations as well so if the article creator is reading you can stop this afd by doing so NotOrrio (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source analysis
  • Canoe Place:
    • Fan site with a total of 17 words about the station. Not significant coverage, and questionable reliability.
  • Bartlett's:
    • Same fan site with one paragraph. Maybe significant coverage, still questionable reliability.
    • Dead link to a different fan site with one sentence, that contradicts the sentence cited to it in the article. Not significant coverage, and questionable reliability.
    • 1852 book that - again contrary to the article - does not actually mention the station
    • 1852 timetable that shows the station. Reliable, but not significant coverage.
    • Dead link to an 1873 map that shows the station. Reliable, but not significant coverage.
    • Mention of a collection of notes. Not verifiable without additional citation details.
    • Dead link to Wikimapia, which is user-generated and thus not a reliable source.
  • Fire Place:
    • Advertisement of opening. Reliable, not really significant coverage.
    • Timetable that doesn't show the station. Reliable, but obviously not significant coverage.
    • First fan site again, saying it "may be one and the same" as another stations
    • Another timetable that doesn't show the station
  • Miller Place:
    • NYT article that does not mention the station. Reliable, but not significant coverage.
    • External links include some fan sites with a few sentences each. Maybe significant coverage, still questionable reliability.
  • Promised Land:
    • First fan site again. Maybe significant coverage, still questionable reliability.
  • Rocky Point:
    • Newspaper article that does not mention the station. Reliable, but not significant coverage.
    • 1895 timetable that shows the station. Reliable, but not significant coverage.
    • NYT article that does not mention the station. Reliable, but not significant coverage.
    • Newspaper article that does not mention the station. Reliable, but not significant coverage.
How are these not notable? Those fan sites include images of public sources. I strongly disagree with moving to redirect or deleting them. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of them have significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, as is required by WP:NOTABILITY. See the list I made above. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A theoretical possible future does not confer notability if there aren't sources that actually provide significant coverage - that's precisely why WP:CRYSTALBALL exists. There is little if any actual coverage of a restoration in reliable sources, and essentially nothing that discusses Rocky Point or Miller Place in that context. What currently available reliable sources provide significant coverage for these stations? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Canoe Place stationMiller Place station and Rocky Point station. Merge and redirect the stations to the articles about their respective LIRR lines. Merge the other stations to the articles about their respective LIRR lines. Namely,  redirect Bartlett's station and Fire Place station to Ronkonkoma Branch; and redirect Promised Land station to Montauk Branch. The two stations on the Port Jefferson Branch may be notable as part of the Wading River Extension, as ComplexRational mentions above, so I'm not 100% sure about these. Even if these two stations don't have their own articles, they could be mentioned in the Port Jeff Branch article. But I don't think any of these articles should be deleted either. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited my !vote. My original !vote is here. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:57, 5 December 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.