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 no consensus. Although the opinions for keep were numerically superior there were policy based arguments against a stand alone page that were not refuted. A discussion on the merits of merging can certainly continue on the talkpage. J04n(talk page) 20:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colliston railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No reliable sources, possibly insignificant. smileguy91^talk 21:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - aren't almost all rail stations automatically notable? There's a little information in a Commons image: [1]. I get the feeling that all coverage of this station, given its location and closure date (1965), is going to be found in books, not on the internet. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm sure this could be a speedy as A7 or possibly G1. A google books search suggests there may be some notability to this station so there I've no objection to recreation as a properly sourced article.Comment There's no such thing as automatic notability - it's just highly probable that all railway stations are likely to be noted in sources. This stub adds no real context or history to the station - the page creator should consider writing a full article in his sandbox first, then moving to main space. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Arbroath and Forfar Railway with redirect the opening and closing dates would be better presented in tabular form on that article rather than retaining this as a permanent stub. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have added in some sources (BTW closure was 1955 rather than 1965 mentioned above); articles on historical artefacts of the UK railway system are reasonable content for encyclopaedic coverage so one for improvement not deletion. (As this is an article by a relatively new and possibly young editor, it would have been helpful to have placed maintenance templates for improvement rather than going straight to AfD just over an hour after the article was created.) AllyD (talk) 10:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I would expect to see evidence that the sources mean it can be expanded beyond it's current stub state - if that is not the case I would recommend merging, possibly to a prose list of minor stations on the railway. BTW the 1965 date above is for full closure for goods trains, 1955 is given for closure to passengers. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Jamieson's correct on the closure date. There's nothing wrong with a decently referenced stub. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:STUB it should not only be decently referenced but "Capable of Expansion". The limited sources in this case, and the little information prescribed within those sources suggest that while there is notability there is little prospect of expansion. It's why I suggest an upmerge to be a better option than keeping as a permastub or deletion. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- WP:V requires that it is verifiable, not verified. Anyway, we now have WP:RS for this as RCAHMS is certainly one. I expect that others exist. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The RCAHMS record is not a reliable source for anything other than the station's existence which is the same for many other non-notable historical items in their collection. The General notabilty guidelines requires a higher threshold which is that those sources discussing the subject present significant coverage. The RCAHMS collection only includes one photograph of the station and no prose written about it. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - not have had a chance to expand yet. Simply south...... eating shoes for just 7 years 15:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Railway stations are generally considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: this meets both the notability and verifiability criteria, and has the potential for further expansion. -- The Anome (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2013 (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.