Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aviation Academy Railway Halt


 * 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 keep all of them. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Aviation Academy Railway Halt

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )



As in the previous AfD, I believe the subjects of these articles fail the notability guideline. While many of the newly created articles are cited to reliable sources and are thus verifiable, the fact that they are all cited to the same books suggests that such coverage is merely passing, and doesn't help satisfy WP:N.

While the previous AfD saw the point being made that railway stations are generally regarded as notable, consulting with the Trains WikiProject has revealed that there is no consensus to support such claims. Furthermore, the nominated articles are merely halts, not fully equipped railway stations, so the argument probably doesn't apply anyway.

While the authors' contributions are appreciated, it must be noted that Wikipedia is not a directory. The mere listing of railway stations doesn't constitute encyclopaedic coverage, and not all railway stops merit an article on Wikipedia. Paul_012 (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Firstly, these are all rail stations, not halts. The nom changed the name of all of them from "Station" to "Halt" after their last batch AfD which was closed as "KEEP".  In Wikipedia we include the designation "halt" in the train station article and small similar stations in other countries are called "station."  Wondabyne railway station is a request halt but we call it station because that's what it is.  Rail stations are all considered notable and nomination so many topics in one gigantic batch AfD is impossible for editors to vet every article anyway and is borderline disruptive.  Stations like this in the UK or US would never be considered for deletion.  Is this a case of systemic bias? --Oakshade (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, but you seem to have confused a few facts. Allow me to correct them: (1) I renamed six articles following Necrothesp's discussion in the previous AfD. The rest were created with these names. (2) The AfD was closed as no consensus, not keep.
 * As noted above, there has been no consensus that railway stations are inherently notable. (The specific discussion referred to in the above link appears to be here.) Also, that other stuff exists is not a valid argument for retention or deletion, so the existence of other articles on stations in other countries should have no bearing on this discussion. If British and American railway stations have received more complete coverage by third-party sources than that of Thai stations, it would seem to indicate a difference in public interest rather than Wikipedia's systemic bias. I acknowledge that this is a rather large nomination, but the fact that almost all of the articles were created within ten days of each other, as well as the near-identical appearance of each one of them, indicate that not much consideration seems to have been given to the individual merits of each station either, so it should be fairly okay to consider them together. I'd performed google searches on many of the subjects prior to nominating, and most of the results were either from the State Railway's or railway enthusiast websites, or passing mention in the news. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Nothing has changed since the last nomination; I agree with Oakshade that this nomination borders on disruptive. 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. The nominator does not explain why these stations aren't notable. The distinction between a station and a halt is semantic at best; any number of stations in the United States could probably be described as halts but none have and furthermore none have been deleted. Any railway station has likely received non-trivial local coverage which is why they're presumptively notable. Spot-checking the articles reveal that they have reliable references; which in a normal scenario would be considered a good thing, not evidence of their non-notability. The concerns about systemic bias shouldn't be dismissed either. The issue isn't whether the public is more "interested" in railway stations in Thailand than in the United States, but rather the accessibility of sources, many of which are not in English and may be offline (even for US topics, I find that many useful sources are offline). As an aside, the referenced TWP discussion is hardly dispositive as one editor answered you (he does not speak for everyone), and the "RFC" he refers to was a discussion on a notability talk page and not a formal RFC (as many participants indicated). Mackensen (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 03:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep all - many of the articles have photographs, thus proving the stations exists or has existed. A mass nomination of about 50 articles in not conducive to easy examination of the issue. Wikipedia is a gazeteer, thus railway stations should be included. Mjroots (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, per above comments. Useddenim (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * delete I've not looked at all of them and I have no source material to go on. However of the dozen or so I have looked at, here and on their Thai articles, I'm seeing unsourced stubs about single line, single platform halts that are no more than a low platform and a shelter, with no other facilities or pointwork. These do not make the case for stand-alone articles.
 * Redirect'ing to sections within an article on the line would be a reasonable alternative. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin - The above two !votes are by the same user. --Oakshade (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Andy Dingley, this is looking like a double vote. Which do you favor?  Delete or redirect?  If redirect, to what exactly?--Oakshade (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * alternative might help you out there. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you alternately favor redirecting, redirect to what? A smart-alack Wikidictionary link doesn't help us read your mind.  By your new paragraph and indenting, it looks like two different votes. I've corrected that.--Oakshade (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a challenging Afd since there are differences between some of the articles which may influence whether they should be kept or not. In general I favor Deleting those that do not cite any WP:RS sources and those that are merely rail halts. However I would Keep any that are actual rail stations and have at least one reliable source cited. I concur with previous comments that there has been a general consensus within the community that train stations are presumptively notable provided there is adequate RS coverage establishing their actual existence. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Has anyone found one of these with an indication (even unsourced) that it is any more than a mere halt? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Have halts been deemed non-notable then? I seem to have missed that notification. Oh well, bye bye Uralite Halt, Salehurst Halt, Black Dog Halt et al. Mjroots (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * They're not inherently non-notable, but nor are they implicitly notable (as we regard stations). If any pass WP:GNG they're of course welcome to stay. But so far, these all seem to be very minor in both importance and in notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Railway stations, however small, are generally held to be inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Railway stations that verifiably exist are presumed notable. The nominator has not shown that there is any reason these stations are not individually notable, and if that were the case they should be merged and redirect to the relevant line/system article not deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Thryduulf. I'd also like to point out that in the past, some users have accused the TWP editors of being biased towards American station articles, an accusation that has been readily dismissed. Eliminating ones for stations in Thailand would only serve to reinforce such suspicions. -User:DanTD (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2015 (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.