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. postdlf (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional railway stations[edit]

List of fictional railway stations (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)

Fails WP:CSC. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can the content be merged? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep The nomination quite fails to explain and justify itself (a classic WP:VAGUEWAVE). There are entire books about fictional railways such as Transport in British Fiction, The Railroad in Literature, The Railroad in American Fiction, and plenty of notable fictional stations such as Walford East, Titfield and platform 9 3/4. Andrew D. (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rebuttal. Books about railroads, but what about stations? None of your links is to actual standalone articles. Yes, there are stations in fictional works, but there are also roads, businesses, brands of toothpaste, etc. So?

• Before we get into all that, there needs to be a coherent case for deletion. Tossing off an obscure TLA isn't enough. You need to explain what it means; why it applies; why it can't be addressed by ordinary editing and why there aren't sensible alternatives to deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 07:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:SALAT, WP:CSC and WP:LSC. Per WP:CSC, every entry in the list is supposed to meet the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. None do. The Dissident Aggressor 15:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This is nonsense as WP:CSC specifically allows for cases where "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles". Both the nomination and this !vote misrepresent this policy guideline. Tsk. Andrew D. (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - still delete because this an utterly useless list. The Dissident Aggressor 21:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrasing in policy-speak: Per WP:SALAT: Nobody has explained how "this list contributes to the state of human knowledge." I don't believe it does, similar to how folks agreed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional theatres. Thryduulf? The Dissident Aggressor 00:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Andrew D. WP:CSC, WP:LSC and WP:SALAT all redirect to the same page, where the only relevant guideline is WP:CSC - a very disingenuous tactic that does not encourage the belief the nomination was made in good faith. If you actually read that guideline you will clearly see this list meets point 2 as Andrew D notes. There is therefore no policy or guideline referenced that gives a reason for deletion and no other explanation for why deletion would improve the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DissidentAggressor: Ok - still delete because this an utterly useless list. so, having acknowledged there is no policy reason to delete this list you still want it deleted and hope nobody notices a WP:IDONTLIKEIT !vote? Sorry, AfD doesn't work that way. Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a unneeded, poorly sourced, and trivial content fork of the obviously notable Railways in fiction, which Andrew's sources discuss, not this topic in particular. Pokerkiller (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except it's not - it would overwhelm the prose article and has been split out per standard practice on Wikipedia, meaning the it's not a content fork and is required. Poor sourcing is not a reason to delete an article, as that can be easily improved by someone with the time. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except it is an un-needed trivial content fork. The Dissident Aggressor 03:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • When someone has explained why it isn't X, simply saying "but it is X" does not advance the discussion in any way. Why do you think it is a content fork, and why do you think it is not needed? On what grounds are you calling this "trivial"? Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Meets WP policies and is an admirably encyclopaedic page. Tim riley talk 15:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I see no problem with this article as long as everything on it is sourced (which most of them are merely by referencing the film or show they featured in given that broadcast media is a source in its own right - it doesn't require further sourcing). -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 16 September 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.