Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halsted Street station (Heritage Corridor)

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 merge‎ to Halsted station (CTA Orange Line). While there is a great deal of support for Keeping this article, none of those advocating Keep have countered the two source analysis that state that the sources don't support GNG so I'm selecting a Merge closure to the most often mentioned target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Halsted Street station (Heritage Corridor) (edit | 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)

Currently zero in-depth coverage on this station, and searches did not turn up enough to meet WP:GNG. Was draftified in hopes of improvement, but returned to mainspace without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 08:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant coverage, and the sources cited are either not RS or passing mentions. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The references are adequate, and the Chicago Tribune reference is more than a passing mention. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Eastmain. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (article's creator here) for the reasons Eastmain gave. Additionally, Pi.1415926535 recently expanded the article with improved and additional references. Lost on  Belmont  ^3200N_1000W  (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the Trib article consists of 3 sentences about the new station, hardly an in-depth piece. The other 4 are simple mentions. Not sure when one brief blurb amounted to significant enough coverage to pass GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If I find some books at the library in an attempt to meet WP:GNG's criteria, would they count towards mainspace eligibility or not really? Because I would be happy to use them as sources, although it may be difficult to find any that are both independent and reliable. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – now appears sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Useddenim (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per reasons stated above. Many closed train stations similarly have limited information both on and off Wikipedia, but keeping them helps to improve them now and later on. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - For the closer, in light of all the !voters above actually ignoring the sourcing, and mostly the WP:OSE arguments, here's an assessment table.

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.newspapers.com/article/chicago-tribune/132466247/	The source is major newspaper	The source is reputable published source	Brief 3 sentence blurb which discusses the station. Definitely not in-depth	✘ No
https://www.loc.gov/resource/g4104cm.g01790191103/?sp=59			Map showing it exists, but zero in-depth coverage	✘ No
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:April_1923_Illinois_Central_Suburban_Trains_West_timetable.pdf	Published by the rail line	Yes	No coverage, simply a listing	✘ No
https://books.google.com/books?id=KSA1HTTU-eMC	Yes	Yes, a major newspaper	Just a brief mention	✘ No
https://books.google.com/books?id=KSA1HTTU-eMC	Published by the rail system	Yes, a major newspaper	Just a brief mention in a table	✘ No
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Southwest_Transit_Corridor_Project_Chica/Ddo3AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Halsted+Street+station%22+chicago&pg=RA8-PT59&printsec=frontcover	Published by city	no editorial oversight	In-depth	✘ No
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Southwest_Transit_Corridor_Project_Chica/Ddo3AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Halsted+Street+station%22+chicago&pg=RA8-PT59&printsec=frontcover	Published by city	no editorial oversight, no peer review	Brief one-line mention	✘ No
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Southwest_Transit_Corridor_Project_Chica/Ddo3AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Halsted+Street+station%22+chicago&pg=RA8-PT59&printsec=frontcover	Independently published	Lulu is a self-publishing site	Brief mention	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

• Redirect to Heritage Corridor#Stations. May or may not be notable (I'm a bit confused) but has anyone considered a WP:ATD so far? S5A-0043^Talk 12:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input on the sources presented above…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still voting keep for reasons above and currently researching the topic in order to preserve the page. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

::●Keep- I Found This, this, & this PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found this. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Based on the source table given, is not adequately covered to meet notability requirements. I can find scattered mentions of the station, but nothing I'd use to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  most3 of the sources should be partial and not red (1,2,4) PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no such thing as partial. The table automatically calculates based on input. I've added the 3 more non-notable references to the table.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Chicago Tribune(newspapers.com)	Major Newspaper	Major Newspaper	3 Scentences	✘ No
Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.			Just a Map	✘ No
April 1923 Illinois Central Station...	Published by the Rail Line		Just a Listing	✘ No
Frank Lloyd Wright: His Life and His Architecture		Published: John Wiley & Sons, Jan 16, 1991	Breif Mention	✘ No
Southwest Transit Corridor Project, Chicago Environmental Impact Statement 1985		?	In Depth	✘ No
Report on the Engineering and Operating Features of the Chicago Transportation Problem Volume 1	Published by: McGraw Publishing	Published by: McGraw Publishing	One Line	✘ No
Outside the Rails: A Rail Route Guide from Chicago to La Plata, MO	?	Self Publishing Website	2 Full paragraphs	✘ No
Ridership Trends - Anual Report 2017	Published By Rail Line		~ Mentioned a Few Times	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

• • PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out in my revert, none of the three sources you added refer to this station. Outside the Rails discusses Halsted Street station, Southwest Transit Corridor Project discusses Halsted station (CTA Orange Line), and Report on the Engineering refers to the Halsted cable car barn. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been searching for books relating to the Alton Railroad and the GM&O, as they would probably be our best bets. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

either way id does not pass GNG PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete doesn't meet GNG requirements to my eyes. Secondary source coverage just isn't there. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Halsted station (CTA Orange Line). The vast majority of stations that survived into the public ownership era easily pass GNG, but there's a handful like this one that probably don't. Merging or redirecting is best for almost any train station, since they're always likely search terms. The Orange Line station is directly across the street from where this station was, so it's an obvious target for the merge. (There's plenty of history to be written about the Orange Line station itself, so it wouldn't be UNDUE.) See Medford/Tufts station and Suffolk Downs station for similar situations where I've incorporated the history of predecessor stations into articles on rapid transit stations. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose delete and the redirect suggested earlier. Torn between keep or merge to Halsted station (CTA Orange Line). If sourcing doesn't pass GNG then merge as an AtD as this station appears to be a predecessor to the current station. Slight problem is there's as much if not more material on this station as things stand than the merge target. Nevertheless, as User:Pi.1415926535 says there's expansion possibilities for that article. Rupples (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2023 (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.