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 redirect to Glassboro–Camden Line. Consensus is clear, even if process isn' t necesarily. Star Mississippi 22:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Glassboro station (Glassboro–Camden Line)

Glassboro station (Glassboro–Camden Line) (  | 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)

This is only a proposed station on a proposed line. There is no guarantee it will even be built, and as it stands it does not meet GNG; a basic search for sources did not turn up anything approaching SIGCOV. Creation of articles on proposed stations on this line is wildly premature. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 00:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New Jersey. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 00:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• Redirect >> Glassboro–Camden Line, where station is listed. Djflem ( talk) 05:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  I have no objection to a redirect. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 14:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• Redirect. This shouldn't be at AfD. Where a topic is verifiable and part of a larger topic that is notable, but not notable itself then the correct courses of action are either merge and redirect, or just redirect - neither of which are deletion. If it is, or you think it might be, controversial then start a discussion on the talk page proposing the (merge and) redirect; if it attracts no responses after a reasonable period of time just go ahead and do it. Nominating pages for deletion that have no chance of being deleted are not good use of editor's time. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  It does have to be at AfD, because a certain editor (Garuda3) will contest any redirects just because he can. I'll try just redirecting next time, but I'm sure it will be contested and we will be right back here. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 15:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  No it doesn't need to be at AfD. You think redirection might be controversial, so you should start a discussion on the talk page (optionally linked from somewhere like the trains WikiProject) proposing redirection - as I wrote in my above comment. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  Do you know how many people will see a talk page discussion on such an obscure article? Zero. And if I'm asking people to join a discussion at the WikiProject, people will still be seeing it and it will still be using editor time. If you think I'm wasting time, then people can just not comment on the AfD and then no time is wasted.

  The thing is, redirection isn't controversial in this case, nobody has argued this merits its own page. But again, Garuda3 will contest the redirect just because he can, even though he has no actual reason to (for instance, finding significant coverage that shows a redirect would be a bad idea, with would be a valid reason to contest). Last time he did this and didn't even bother to show up at the AfD, which closed with unanimous consensus to redirect. Filing an AfD allows an affirmative consensus to redirect and actually saves time. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 13:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC) reply

If I just redirect, someone will contest and say "take it to AfD". If I take it to AfD, someone will say "why didn't you just redirect it, you're wasting our time." Do you see how this puts me in a catch-22 where no matter what I do, someone's going to complain? When I'm doing NPP, I need to get articles out of the queue, and this one was not fit to remain in mainspace. If I did what you said, there'd be so many posts on WT:TRAINS about non-notable stations it would be almost overwhelming. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 13:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC) reply

There is no deadline, so there is no rush "get pages out of the queue"; but your main problem seems to be a disagreement with a specific editor. AfD is not the correct forum for disputes of that nature and you should seek resolution in the correct place rather than use AfD to bypass doing so. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC) reply

My nominating this for deletion had nothing to do with a specific editor and everything to do with processing pages in NPP. I chose AfD because I know redirects are frequently contested, and the name of the editor who does it doesn't change that fact. It's easy to say there's no rush when the NPP backlog is low, but until very recently it was over 10,000 pages; timely reviewing is necessary to prevent that from recurring. As I said above, next time I will redirect/merge rather than initially using AfD, but if it's contested I will have no choice but to use AfD. I have actually been trying to minimize the number of things I bring to AfD from NPP by using tags for not enough sources or notability and then giving the page creator a few days to address the issue, as has Onel5969 who also often reviews train related articles at NPP; most of what I've nominated lately has been uncontroversial. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 19:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• Redirect >> Glassboro–Camden Line, per Djflem. A redirect will preserve the information for future restoration and expansion. --------- User:DanTD ( talk) 18:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Glassboro–Camden Line per everyone else. XtraJovial ( talk • contribs) 14:45, 14 November 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.