Talk:Pathsala railway station

Notability
Hello, Thryduulf, you deprodded this article, two short sentences, with speculation that there are sources to be found to support the article. I am curious. Is a five-year-old unreferenced subject about which noting more is said than two sentences an appropriate article for an encyclopedia? We don't know if any trains stop there, or even if the station exists. The converse is that a simple allegation that train station exists is enough to support an article. Yes, I know the argument that the possibility of references is sufficient to save an article. I am interested to hear you make it for this station. Rhadow (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As I noted in the edit summary it is trivially easy to verify that there are sources to show the station exists and that trains call at it. That's more than enough to determine that it should not be deleted, e.g. and the Indian Railways website (I can't figure out how to get a URL to the specific page though) - indeed it's so trivial to find I'm wondering if you did any WP:BEFORE prior to prodding? If you don't think it is notable enough for an article then nominate it for merging into a broader article (e.g. about the line it is on), but every railway station that verifiably exists (and most that verifiably existed previously for any length of time) should be either an article or a redirect to a broader article where it is mentioned. There is also a presumption of notability for railway stations as railways are very substantial undertakings that cannot be built without significant investment and significant planning, which nearly always results in coverage in reliable sources - however such sources are not always online and not always in English, especially for stations in countries where English is not the local language (e.g. India) and stations built before the internet (most of India's railways were built in the 19th Century). Thryduulf (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If it is trivially easy to to verify sources, why is it so difficult to find the URL? The presumption of notability is misplaced when there are no facilities at a train stop. There are no mentions in the press of this place or activities there. Neither the preceding nor succeeding stations have warranted an article. The nearest the station came to fame was a derailment in 1972, some kilometers away. "Hard to find," "not in English," and "built during the Raj" are weak excuses to support a presumption that the topic is worthy of an encyclopedia article.. Rhadow (talk) 09:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you think this should be deleted nominate it at AfD but I will not support that - this should be an article or redirect to broader article. Just because other articles haven't been written yet says nothing about this one (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). As for finding the URL I was referring specifically to the Indian railways website and the best I can say is look for yourself - the URL doesn't update when with queries or selections. Why would you expect press reports about a small station in India to be in English? That's one of the systematic biases Wikipedia is trying hard to overcome and not something that I will ever endorse. Thryduulf (talk) 10:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Notability of railway stations generally, in India specifically
There are 8,500 railway stations in India. I do not agree that it is systemic or cultural bias to assert that they are not all notable. An article does not add value to a reader if it simply duplicates the information in NDTV or Indiarailinfo. Pathsala is an example of a non-notable topic as described in Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations). There is no significant press coverage in English at least.
 * There are many thousands of railway and subway stations. The question is sometimes raised as to whether one of these places is notable enough for a standalone article. Notability says: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
 * It may be considered that if enough attributable information is available about a station on a main system to verify that it exists, it generally is appropriate for the subject to have its own article. For proposed or planned stations, historic railways stations that only existed briefly, or stations on metro, light rail, tram, people mover, or heritage railway lines, if insufficient source material is available for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the station in an article about the line or system that the station is on.

Your suggestion to merge the station with the village article is the best approach in this case, unless you think that merging it with its parent rail line is more appropriate. Rhadow (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably merging to both settlement and line is appropriate but the redirect should be to the line. Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)