Talk:Bajva railway station
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
New policy interpretation; presumption of notability for railway stations and highways[edit]
This article unreferenced for ten years, was PRODded after a BEFORE search. I could not verify the various assertions made in the article. The PROD was was reverted without improvement, but with this comment, " (deprod; clearly exists (look on the map); railway stations are notable; does not fail WP:V)."
It seems now that the WP:V policy applies to all but highways and rail stations. All that is required to substantiate an article is a report (not citation) that the feature appears on a map. I reject the argument that WP:NODEADLINE applies, not after ten years. This is an inappropriate approach for an encyclopedia. Rhadow (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- I think you probably misunderstand WP:V. Verifiability doesn't require sourcing, just a probability that sources exist. And its existence can be verified by looking at Google Maps. We can see a very obvious railway station in Bajva. That's all we need for an article. Feel free to delete anything else that's in the article, but all that's necessitated for the existence of an article on a railway station is the existence of the railway station. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Necrothesp, you hit the nail on the head. "Verifiability doesn't require sourcing, just a probability that sources exist." This is in line with the argument that says, "every other article of this class has an article, and there is a strong presumption of notability..."
Proof, then falls along a continuum, from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "I know it to be so." I hope you agree that original research is insufficient for an an encyclopedia. I believe that we agree that for most articles and most assertions, beyond a reasonable doubt is too stringent. I ask you, though, after ten years, if no sources have been found and included, isn't the probability so low as to be negligible? If you disagree, then tell me please, what time frame you would propose. Rhadow (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- However, this is what the policy WP:V says. Always has done. And railway stations are considered to be notable if they exist. And stubs are perfectly acceptable. So I'm not sure what your argument is, to be honest. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)