Talk:Abandoned railway station

Architecture Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: Stations Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Stations.

This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.

Deletion discussion

Abandoned railways stations was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made below rather than here so that this is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP

Untitled

I'm doing some more maintainance; listing VfD nominations that were "lost" because the nominator never actually listed them on VfD (Or maybe they were but didn't have a heading. I'm finding these through the Pages on Votes for Deletion category). For this particular page, I vote weak keep. Almost no useful content, but I believe it could be encyclopedic. Cool Hand Luke 04:37, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate Wikipedia article, right? Katherine Shaw 11:41, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Keep Harmless at worst. jengod 19:17, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
Potentially legit topic (and strong interest of mine), although not the easiest topic to write a general article upon. However, delete unless rewritten and moved to somewhere less nonsensical by the conclusion of this VFD. Ambi 09:29, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep; good topic, article seems alright. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 04:43, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
Keep It's a stub, and if expanded, could be interesting. Fg2 04:53, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
keep, could turn into something interesting. Posiduck 06:17, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I can see the promise in the title, but the article looks abandoned itself. List on cleanup. Average Earthman 08:53, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Abstain. Don't know if topic could lead to encyclopedic articles. However, shouldn't it be the singular of railways? --Improv 15:41, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep but move to proper name. Even I don't vote to delete this, but it does seem more like a pointer than a page, and the category system should obviate the need for those now. Geogre 18:19, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. This should involve fixing the name, and there's quite a lot of other stuff to do as well. Andrewa 21:10, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep and move to the right name. —siro χ o 01:12, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
Keep and move to the right name. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:48, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
Keep - David Gerard 12:26, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

End archived discussion -- Graham ☺ | Talk 12:58, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As a suggestion: turn the page into a discussion on why stations and lines are closed and/or include in, or link to, a page on economics of transport/economics of rail transport.

Jackiespeel 13:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jackiespeel. Failing that, merge this article into Urban Exploration --- Trevie 16:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abandoned railway station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071218171938/http://www.londonrailways.net:80/ghosts.html to http://www.londonrailways.net/ghosts.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]