Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern Parade 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 redirect‎ to Dry Creek–Port Adelaide railway line. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Parade railway station

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No evidence of any notability found online, single source doesn't give any notability either. Fram (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Transportation, and Australia. Fram (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect >>>> Dry Creek–Port Adelaide railway line Djflem (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article isn't sure about a single thing. "It was probably located in the suburb of Ottoway, South Australia." "It is unclear when the station opened." "There is no longer any trace of the station." If you can't say a single verifiable fact about a subject, it should not have an article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dry Creek–Port Adelaide railway line. It is absolutely verifiable that this station existed, and that passenger services ceased as recently as 1987 making it unambiguously a plausible search term. While it's unlikely (but not impossible) there will be many in-depth sources about it, there being no sources at all for things like the location is implausible - it's just that they will be mostly offline (the 1980s is too late to out-of-copyright content online and too early to have born-digital content). In situations like this the best we can do for readers is to redirect the title to coverage on a broader article, which in this case is the article about the railway line. Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree that it should be merged otherwise, deleteNatalieTT (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2024 (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.