- 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 Okaihau Branch. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 03:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Rangiahua railway station
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Rangiahua railway station ( | 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)
A station that never saw a single passenger. The line it was built for never opened. A cursory before search found zero. This is quite simply not a notable subject and the article never should have been created. Article was previously PRODed and then dePRODed with a rationale of "you have to prove it's not notable" while providing zero evidence otherwise. At best this should be a redirect to Okaihau Branch. According to that article, "The Rangiahua section was essentially complete: the line wound downhill to the settlement and a station yard complete with platform was built, though the station building itself was not erected."
So, we are dealing with a station that wasn't even completed. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 15:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New Zealand. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 15:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment what I actually said when deprodding was "If sources to expand this cannot actually be found (rather than just assumed not to exist) then it should be merged or redirected not deleted", based on an PROD rationale that appeared to based only the content of the article. I do not appreciate the misrepresentation. I do not assert that this is notable, just that if it is not it should be redirected not deleted. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Okaihau Branch; that would appear to be the logical thing to do given that it had been built. Schwede 66 19:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect as above. Non-notable, unused station. ARandomName123 ( talk)Ping me! 20:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 Okaihau Branch. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 03:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Rangiahua railway station
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Rangiahua railway station ( | 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)
A station that never saw a single passenger. The line it was built for never opened. A cursory before search found zero. This is quite simply not a notable subject and the article never should have been created. Article was previously PRODed and then dePRODed with a rationale of "you have to prove it's not notable" while providing zero evidence otherwise. At best this should be a redirect to Okaihau Branch. According to that article, "The Rangiahua section was essentially complete: the line wound downhill to the settlement and a station yard complete with platform was built, though the station building itself was not erected."
So, we are dealing with a station that wasn't even completed. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 15:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New Zealand. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 15:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment what I actually said when deprodding was "If sources to expand this cannot actually be found (rather than just assumed not to exist) then it should be merged or redirected not deleted", based on an PROD rationale that appeared to based only the content of the article. I do not appreciate the misrepresentation. I do not assert that this is notable, just that if it is not it should be redirected not deleted. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Okaihau Branch; that would appear to be the logical thing to do given that it had been built. Schwede 66 19:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect as above. Non-notable, unused station. ARandomName123 ( talk)Ping me! 20:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- 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.