Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hapa Road 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 no consensus. Firstly, an AfD that starts "This article should be REDIRECTed to its parent Western Railway" is probably an invalid argument (unless Rhadow is invoking WP:IAR and treating this as "Articles for discussion" where more people will see the debate). Opinions are split between keeping and merging; neither of those two actions require any administrator action and can be done simply by being bold outside of the scope of this AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hapa Road railway station

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

Hapa Road railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article should be REDIRECTed to its parent Western Railway. It is an example of a sub-stub-class article. Look at its present condition. It includes Indic script in the infobox. The article text includes information from only one subject-sponsored website Indiarailinfo. There are four references gratuitously added that have nothing to do with the article text. The text of the lede was added by rote or programmatically, exactly the same as hundreds of other articles, including the same grammatical errors. And at this station, no trains stop according to Indiarailinfo. The article is not useful to a reader. Rhadow (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indian-railway related AFDs:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All railway stations are notable. This principle was recognized many years ago so that we would not have arguments about small and unexciting railway stations. Including the local name of the station in the infobox is perfectly reasonable. Being temporarily closed while the railway line is upgraded does not diminish the station's notability. Disused stations are notable, just like those is current use. Once notable, always notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As to Indic script, please see MOS:INDICSCRIPT. This has been discussed and settled seven times. Rhadow (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have long determined that all railway stations are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Necrothesp, well not ALL stations are notable. Wikipedia:Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations)#Stations. It still need third party coverage --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, we have long presumed that they all are. That's a mere essay. It does not reflect actual consensus. See WP:RAILOUTCOMES for a summary of actual consensus. I'm not sure I've ever seen a railway station deleted here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Necrothesp, well merge is also an option. I think the OP is calling for a merge not a deletion.
    It still need to pass GNG to get a stand-alone article. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As User:Eastmain says above, the reason we have this consensus is to try to avoid having these debates, which invariably end in keeping the article, in the first place. It does usually work! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Necrothesp, well merge is always an option. And as User:Ahecht says below it promotes circular reasoning. I, therefore, think the best course of action is a merge as I don't think it is worthy of an individual articular despite it perhaps being notable. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge into Ahmedabad railway division Not finding third-party coverage to even pass WP:GNG. Looking at Wikipedia:Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations)#Stations, it says stations are not inherently notable. It still need to pass WP:GNG --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I don't see why railway stations should get an exemption from WP:N and WP:NGEO that other municipal structures, such as schools, aren't afforded. Citing WP:RAILOUTCOMES may be an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning, although overcoming that may require an RFC similar to the secondary schools RFC. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 16:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just an illustration of consensus to try and avoid editors nominating these articles in the first place and therefore long, unnecessary, timewasting debates. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Necrothesp, well it's circular reasoning and I don't see why stations should be excluded from WP:GNG, which is the most basic notability test. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Interesting to see that Necrothesp is again pushing a circular reasoning that is not based on any policy or guideline. The Banner talk 18:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find it incredibly hard to believe this is the one railway station in the entire world that isn't notable. See also WP:RAILOUTCOMES as others have pointed out. Smartyllama (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you want to keep the article because in the past articles were kept because in the past articles were kept because in the past articles were kept because in the past articles were kept because in the past articles were kept because in the past articles were kept etc. Do you have any policy or guideline-based arguments? The Banner talk 20:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • TNT delete. Such a page is altogether useless to readers. I understand that railway stations generally get plenty of coverage, and with the conclusion that they're all notable I have no disagreement, but articles have to contain actually useful encyclopedic content, or deletion is better than keeping (assuming nobody improves things in the mean time). Of course, anyone's always free to create a new, encyclopedic article following a TNT deletion. Nyttend (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, do not redirect to the railway. Minor stations definitely don't deserve to be mentioned in company articles, unless they're tiny railways, e.g. Buckingham Branch Railroad mentions a station in Dillwyn, Virginia because it's the company's HQ, but Norfolk Southern Railway doesn't mention ordinary former stations. If we neither delete it nor keep it as a freestanding article, the best target would be Himatnagar (or some other locality article), because train stations are of significance to the communities where they're located and deserve to be mentioned (in passing, at least) in their articles. Nyttend (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nyttend, how about the page about the line the station is on like Ahmedabad railway division? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 06:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not in this situation. Maybe if the article were fuller, but it's mostly a "list of stations in the Ahmedabad railway division", and redirecting X to List of X isn't a good idea. Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as all railway stations are inherently kept. –Davey2010Talk 12:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Davey2010, again circular reasoning. It doesn't even pass GNG. The essay say that all articles need to pass GNG --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMHO railway stations don't need to meet GNG, They're part of a town (which are also inherently kept per GEOLAND). –Davey2010Talk 20:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Davey2010, but stations are not cities. Also geoland states "therefore, geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable." So it must at least meet GNG. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm well aware of that but the point still stands - Cities and railway stations are generally kept. –Davey2010Talk 21:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above claims that railroad station pages are always kept. I can see the logic in that, as railroad stations are often the anchor of a town, village, or locale in terms of travel to surrounding or distant destinations. Since they footprint the "way out", even smaller stations (and maybe especially smaller stations) attain notability by mere existence. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Randy Kryn, so you are arguing that it should be kept despite failing WP:GNG? Also, the article could have easily been merged into an article of the line the station is on. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge This idea that stations are automatically notable just for existing is absolutely preposterous. None of the sources have substantive information about this platform in particular and are rather about the line more generally, failing to pass GNG. Google maps shows how little infrastructure this site has, being more of a stop than an actual station, and this cannot be assumed notable. These keep arguments based on inherent notability are not based on policy. Reywas92Talk 20:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep or Merge all current and former permanent heavy-rail stations that verifiably exist or existed are indeed notable per long-standing precedent (and for good reason that have been repeatedly explained by others). However that doesn't mean that every railway station needs a standalone article, where we don't presently have enough information to sustain a standalone article the information we do have should be merged and redirected to a suitable location (most commonly the article about the line it is on). Deletion is not appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Negligible coverage independent of rail line. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP consensus wisely decided long ago that all rail stations are notable. This ensures thousands of editors don't waste there time and energy fleshing out and debating the retention of articles on the tens of thousands of stations when editors efforts are much better spent on creating new articles and improving existing ones. For this and most stations, it's impossible for in depth coverage like extensive government reports and budgets to not exist.Oakshade (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you mind to give evidence of the vote on that? And give details about the policies and/or guidelines that decision is based on? The Banner talk 17:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • The evidence is WP:Consensus, which is the primary deciding policy, through almost 15 years of regular consensus-based editing of retaining rail stations. Except for the occasional merging of rail-related stops like tram stops, there is zero evidence of consensus showing opposite. Oakshade (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • If there is consensus, why is this article on AfD? Maybe there is less consensus than you claim... The Banner talk 21:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • One AfD does not all negate the almost 15 years of consensus, especially if that AfD fails, which it appears this one will. The rareness of just the starting AfDs of stations, especially in proportion to the amount of station articles, further demonstrates consensus. Occasionaly an editor who is not familiar with the consensus on stations will throw one up for Afd and in all of those few cases, except for articles like tram stops, the articles are retained. Oakshade (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, you can deny what you want but even at this moment there are two stations at AfD. And it is likely that there are more to follow. Making your "consensus" more and more a dream. The Banner talk 22:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • Sorry, not denying almost 15 years of WP:CONSENSUS. And the second AfD on a station was just started by the exact same editor as the initiator of this AfD.Oakshade (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  Oakshade, in addition, you could very well merge the rail stations. These short stubs don't particularly give the user information that a single article can't.
                  Also, it's circular reasoning I see here as everyone seems to quote that one article rather than point out the relevant policy why it should be kept. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • You and other editors asking that question of all the 'Keep' editors shows that all of them, without quoting and arguing chapter-and-verse-guidelines and policies back to you, believe that this is one of the WP:COMMON exceptions. Remember, the "ignore all rules" pillar of the site is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, and allows things like this lonely page to exist. The reading public is better for it. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed, that is why I am questioning baseless circular reasoning. The Banner talk 19:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Contrary to claims made above, not all rail stations are presumptively notable. But there has been a rough consensus that stations serving heavy rail lines are. As far as I can tell that applies here. That said the article is in very poor shape. Article quality does matter and this came very close to an IAR exception and getting a delete vote from me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect. No substantial coverage in reliable sources, little to say. Contrary to the assertions above, no community-adopted policy or guideline establishes that all railway stations are notable. Sandstein 09:25, 6 February 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hapa_Road_railway_station&oldid=882033109"