Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devons Road DLR 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 keep‎. Article seems to have been improved since its listing, WP:HEY applies. Only one non-Keep !vote even after a relist. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Devons Road DLR 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)

Nothing on the page to suggest there are sufficient independent RS to meet the inclusion criteria. WP:NTRAINSTATION WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. JMWt (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (expecting snowball keep frankly). Just because there are no sources on the article does not mean they do not exist. MRSC (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if you could suggest some relevant sources that meet the standards for inclusion that would be great. Thanks. JMWt (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see a few book sources in the article. Have you verified that the offline sources also do not provide SIGCOV? Generally active British railway stations are kept at AfD because of the offline sourcing. Jumpytoo Talk 21:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sourcing available. Vast amounts have been written about all stations in the UK. Satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:10, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for a source assessment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, thinking redirect to section on initial line in Docklands Light Rail About half the text of the article is actually about that initial line, and about the only section that isn't filler is the description of the station itself and its alterations. I'm thinking a better solution would be to break out articles of the various lines into separate articles. Mangoe (talk) 12:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the edits made by MRSC. While stations are not automatically notable, this is an active station and does have coverage in sources, as well as some shorter mentions in sources about other topics. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2025 (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.