Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aviation Academy Halt Railway Station, Thailand


 * 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. Whereas it is indeed kind of consensus that railway stations are notable, here there is an issue of whether these stations actually qualify as stations, so that I close this as no consensus defaulted as keep.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Aviation Academy Halt Railway Station, Thailand

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't believe these subjects, which are all railway halts consisting of one or two platforms and a sign, meet the general notability guideline. Some of the articles are cited to some of the State Railway of Thailand's annual reports, which aren't independent publications, and Google searches in Thai turned up no in-depth mentions. Paul_012 (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep all. It has long been established that all railway stations are notable, no matter how small. Should all be renamed to "Foo Halt" though. They don't need "Railway Station" or "Thailand" appended. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge. There seem to be only 2 places that give advice i.e. WP:STATION and WP:RAILSTATION. Neither say every station should have its own article. WP:RAILOSTATION suggests that if most or all stations are small (like these) then the stations should go on the article for the line. In most cases, this would be the Suphanburi Line. The 2 exceptions would be Ramathibodi Hospital Halt and Yommerat Halt. So far, I haven't been able to identify a sensible article for them to go into, so until that happens then the articles will have to be kept. Op47 (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Both essays and not in any way binding, but the reality is that it is virtually unheard of for articles on railway stations to be deleted at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but you have no evidence at all that "it has long been established that all railway stations are notable, no matter how small." So how much less binding is your statement? Op47 (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My "evidence" is long experience of AfDs! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. No reason given for deletion. It's well-established precedent that individual train stations are presumptively notable and that they are generally kept at AfD. The threshold tends to be street-running tram stops as they're functionally equivalent to bus stations. If Op47 likes I can dredge up a bunch of similar AfDs which demonstrate this, but that's not really a good use of anyone's time. One or two platforms and a sign would describe any number of stations in the United States, none of which have been deleted. Just because the nominator cannot find sources does not mean sources do not exist; it beggars belief that a given railway station has not received non-trivial local coverage. Furthermore, annual reports and such are perfectly valid sources to prove something's existence and give basic facts about a subject. Mackensen (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason was given as failure to meet the WP:General notability guideline. Of course, it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. The burden of evidence lies with those making the positive claim. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Notability is not a criteria for deletion. Never has been. These articles might be suitable for merges but that's a separate question. Mackensen (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 07:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to appropriate railway line or delete. These are unimpressive keep arguments.  Notability is indeed a valid criteria for deletion; see WP:Deletion policy.  Is there an actual policy that says all railway stations are notable?  I don't see one... NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep All railway stations are notable.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep for all - general consensus is that railway stations are notable enough to sustain articles. Mjroots (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, as almost all stations are notable. Epicgenius (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete all: these are mere railway halts, not stations. While I do agree that stations are usually notable, the same is not true for mere halts, i.e. a platform and a sign, where sometimes a train stops. This is a big difference from a station, which usually includes more infrastructure. The articles are therefore mis-named (insofar they include the words "railway station" in their title, the Thai equivalents are named ที่หยุดรถไฟ (translating to 'place where a train stops') and not สถานีรถไฟ (the Thai word for railway station). The content may be merged into the article about the Suphanburi Line though. (Unfortunately, some of the "keep" votes seem to be based on the misconception that these articles are about railway stations, which they are not). --RJFF (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.