Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nea Peramos railway station

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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nea Peramos railway station

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable railway station. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 13:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they also fail general notability guidelines and WP:NOTDIR. It seems that the author of these articles is trying to make directory of train stops. Possibly these titles could be redirected or merged with the article for the railway line, assuming that the railway line article itself is notable:

- Mr X 13:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC), 14:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it is more of lack of sources for the articles under WP:CITE. There's already an article for every station in Greater London, including the Overground (our equivalent to the Proastiakos), but they all have sources and images. --Marianian^(talk) 18:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all for now. These articles were only created a few hours ago and it is way too early to say that they are not capable of meeting WP:STATION. Already they have useful content and all look legitimate stubs. We need to avoid systemic bias and give ample time for sources in Greek to be researched. They seem to have the potential for notability so this is a case where the pages should be tagged for improvement and allowed to develop, the way that the Project grows. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to change my !vote to keep if, in the next week, sources are identified showing that these individual station are notable, which seems pretty unlikely. As far it being too early to consider deletion, that's not really a good argument, since it's up to the author to verify that a subject is notable before creating an article. - Mr X 21:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all They are valid stubs and because of the language it will take longer to research references (than London). Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. This is cowardly, as there are many articles on North American stations you could have targeted. Have a go at Category:Muni Metro stations which are mostly just curbside stops. These stations are real buildings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.188.147 (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC) — 50.100.188.147 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment This does seem to be targeted at a new user. Stations on the same line which were created by other people remain untouched. I have notified editors who may be interested but were unaware of these new articles. Sw2nd (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I simply nominated articles in the new page patrol queue that do not seem to meet our inclusion standards. If each of these stations have been written about in reliable, independent sources, then they should be kept. If not, then the information could easily be included in summary form in the article for each railway line, assuming the railway lines are notable. - Mr X 14:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep all in my opinion as per WP:DONTBITE, and another question is what is stopping prevent Athens' stations from having the same scope as London's stations? Check out List of London railway stations and List of London Underground stations: all 366 National Rail and 270 Underground stations are on Wikipedia. --Marianian^(talk) 14:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't bite the new user, or at least not intentionally. I simply nominated articles in the new page patrol queue that do not seem to meet our inclusion standards. WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a compelling argument. A sample of some of the London station articles indicate that they are notable, and have a history that would be valuable for an encyclopedia. - Mr X 14:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The timetable for the few I checked is here. Oh and Keep per the usual outcome for railway stations. Edgepedia (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Megara railway station is a content fork of Megara station; these need to be merged. Edgepedia (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per WP:OUTCOMES - railway stations are generally deemed to be notable. New page patrol or not this does smell of WP:BITE and the nominator should remember not to assume things aren't notable and punch delete with lightning speed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per others. It's absolutely impossible for these stations, which are all multi-million Euro projects, to exist without extensive in-depth government studies, reports and construction and operational statistics. Besides the WP:BITE occurring (New user Oh Yeaaahh deserves commendation for all the work they've put into these station articles), I'm curious if this is case of systemic bias as equivalent metro stations other nations' capitol/largest cities like New York or London would never be considered for AfD.--Oakshade (talk) 04:58, 1 August 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.