Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newbridge on Wye 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The result was Nomination withdrawn (WP:HEY; NAC) Ipatrol (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newbridge on Wye railway station

Minor train station with no sources existent or to be found. Nothing to merge either. Fails WP:V and WP:N. Ipatrol (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Highest Heights (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, decision to go for AfD is a non-sense. Article complies with WP:V and WP:N.Pyrotec (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is WP:verifiable, which unsupprisingly is a requirement of WP:V.Pyrotec (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources to show verifiability and notability. Quantpole (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unless my memory is defective, I thought it had already been decided that all railway stations are notable. So the only requirement is to verify its existence (which Pyrotec has now done, and much more). --Dr Greg (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, much improved (well done Pyrotec). Bencherlite ^Talk 22:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep - but still expandable! axp_de ^Hello! 07:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Even before the sources were added, how did this "fail" WP:V? A topic doesn't "fail" WP:V if it is currently unverified, but if it's completely unverifiable. --Oakshade (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep, shouln't have been nominated in the first place. Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note For everyone criticizing the nomination, here's a difflink on how I found it. I am currently considering closing the nomination par WP:HEY, but I have not make a decision yet so as of now I am still pushing for deletion.

Keep It existed, so it should stay. [[1]] Alexs (talk) 09:45, 3 June 2009 (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.