Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horní Poustevna 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.

Horní Poustevna railway 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)

Per

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 12:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The station is a real building. I added a photo by Palickap (talk · contribs · count) from Commons. If the building dates back to the opening of the railway line (1904), then more references ought to be available. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I apologize, I confused it with the shelter in Vilémov (it is also just a stop on request). But even so, this is not the reason for keep, if it is not notable. It is definitely not a protected cultural monument. If the building was from 1904, it would not be exceptional by Czech standards anyway. FromCzech (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't delete. It seems likely that this can be expanded, given that most other similar stations can be/have been, but if it can't then it should be merged to the article about the line and/or the locality. Thryduulf (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NTRAINSTATION says: "Train stations have no inherent notability and are not presumed notable for simply being train stations." Can you be more specific why this particular station deserves its own page? The information about the line is already included in the location's page. FromCzech (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If you read what I actually wrote you will see that your question is not relevant. If all the content is already is both applicable places then there should be a redirect to it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Coverage sufficient to meet
  WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Few things to note; A) It being a building is not a valid reason to keep - A school is a building but they end up at AFD if found to be non-notable, same goes for any building.

B) You can't say "Coverage sufficient to meet WP:GNG" without providing actual sources to back that claim up (1 cite to a timetable is not sufficient coverage!).

This exists which only tells us it exists and I believe what services call there - Google News has 0 results so this quite obviously fails GNG. Horní Poustevna doesn't exist but Ústí nad Labem Region does - Whilst I do want to keep it I don't see the point in it being merged to Ústí nad Labem Region as it's kind of irrelevant. Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 18:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In agreement with you. The probable reason the village of Horni Poustevna doesn't have an article is because its administratively considered to be part of Dolní Poustevna. Don't think a merge is appropriate as it may unbalance that article but would it be in order to redirect this to Dolní Poustevna#Transport as Horni Poustevna is already mentioned under the Transport heading there? Rupples (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Dolní Poustevna#Transport (where the station is already mentioned) retaining article history or possibly merge, if as seems likely notability cannot be established. This is similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vilémov u Šluknova railway station which resulted in a merge to the locality the station serves. The problem here is that a page for the locality of Horni Poustevna hasn't been created on English Wikipedia (does have a page on Czech Wikipedia). Rupples (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC) (edited to include possibility of merge Rupples (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2023 (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.