Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cilame 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 delete. Its not entirely clear what we should do with this but there is a very weak consensus to delete. If anyone wants it in draft then let me know and I will move it there. The advice to build the articles in the order of network, lines and then stations makes sense. Spartaz Humbug! 22:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Cilame railway station

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A non-notable railway station, does not meet WP:GNG  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  11:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  11:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  11:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Draft This has only just been created I would of thought of sending this to draft first and ask the creator and give him/her a chance to expand the article. Govvy (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * comment The whole state of the Javanese railroad articles is pretty poor. One possibility with these station articles is to redirect to articles on lines, but the article on the state rail service is really sketchy and incomplete. Historically there has been wide variation in notability standards for standards by region. Mangoe (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Indonesian Wikipedia have its own standards for Indonesian railway station articles notability guides, dealing with small stations:
 * Must have at least one photograph of the railway station building from any views (remember: building, not its signages). If it is still standing, the image must be free and uploaded on Wikimedia Commons (not local except those made by M. Hanafi and Karyadi Baskoro).
 * During COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia, our Indonesian WikiProject Trains members will update/add newest images for railway stations around his/her home province.
 * Distance from a set point (e.g. km 25+000) and its class (large, medium, small station or halt), must be referenced. Read mop5.dephub.go.id and studiegroep-zwp.nl/halten for more information.
 * If the building is totally demolished with no photographs ever taken before, the article will be deleted. If it is partially demolished, the photograph should be provided, see this example.
 * As of 2017, new railway line-related article must be provided first before creating station-related articles. Alqhaderi Aliffianiko (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC) RaFaDa20631 (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Many issues here.  The English-language guidelines on railway station notability doesn't set out any special standards of size or status or traffic levels.  The result of an RFC was a long discussion ending with fundamental uncertainty about the definition of a train station to begin with.  So that's little help.  While acknowledging the work of  and  and others in building up content about the Indonesia rail system, have a look at the template Train Stations in Indonesia with its hundreds of redlinks.  Redirecting this article to the rail line it serves is a logical idea, but that points to Cikampek–Padalarang, which doesn't exist yet.  This particular station is three very modest one-story concrete-block buildings in a rural setting, adequately covered in the Indonesian-language version.  Respect and encouragement to editors interested in developing Indonesian rail articles goes with a suggestion that posting solid articles on the entire rail system first, then the carriers, then the lines, then the stations, would tend to prevent wasted effort.  That was 's point too, I believe.  --Lockley (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The standards set out by are pretty solid and we would do well to consider adopting them here (bad news for countries that lack freedom of panorama). The article is a stub, yes, but there's room for expansion. The topic has received some coverage in reliable sources and we generally assume with railway stations that there's more out there. I do have some concerns about systemic bias; we have plenty of similar stubs about stations in Europe and India without about the same level of sourcing. The absence of an article about the line is a real problem. I'd be fine with drafting this until an article about the line had been created or translated. Without the line there's a real lack of context. Mackensen (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have always kept articles on all railway stations. Longstanding consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not true. American stations are almost never kept unless the building itself is notable, except in the case of subway stops. Mangoe (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Almost never kept? That doesn't accord with my experience at all; I'm having trouble remembering a heavy rail station that got deleted at AfD. Do you have links to those discussions handy? Mackensen (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That exact question was an unresolved controversy as of August 2019 with a long discussion and strong opinions on both sides. --Lockley (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In the US the issue has tended to revolve around geography stubs which turned out to be isolated stations without associated towns. Even when there was a town around them, the station itself is unlikely to have an article unless it is NHRP-listed or was ever an Amtrak station, but stubs on town-less isolated stations have routinely been deleted as lacking notability; and if there is a town, it'll just say "was served by XX Railroad." Mangoe (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, sure, but those stations are inactive and (usually) demolished. This is neither. Mackensen (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The AfDs referred to by Mangoe are relating to the alleged surrounding settlements (which are often claimed not to exist), not to the stations themselves, so are irrelevant to this discussion. If an article was created on the station itself then that would almost certainly be kept. The fact it no longer exists is utterly irrelevant to its notability. The fact that an article has not been created yet does not mean that the station is not notable. Wikipedia is a work in progress. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   13:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or Draft with covet of needing a review before being recreated. Because it seems like the sourcing for it to be notable is currently lacking and there isn't even an article about the railway line it's attached to. Plus it sounds like it's covered fine in the Indonesian-language version anyway and I think scope applies here. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Completely irrelevant. Each Wikipedia is independent of the others. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I mean it was relevant to how I voted. That aside, depending on the subject and how "minor" it, is I feel slightly better voting deleting if the topic isn't being completely wiped off the face of Wikipedia. It's totally a personal preference, but last time I checked we can have those. Also, it wasn't the main reason I voted deleted anyway. So, by bringing it up your really needlessly nitpicking. Stick to what matters, the lack of notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Same sense: Kedunggalar railway station, Geneng railway station, Babadan railway station, Saradan railway station, Wilangan railway station (currently a defunct railway station), Bagor railway station, Sukomoro railway station, Baron railway station . They are not for passenger services, just for operationals (much like a passing loop system). However, we cannot describe anything about its significance except the comparison of old building and new one after double-tracking in around 2017–2019. There are no corresponding railway line article, i.e. an article titled Solo Balapan–Kertosono railway does not exist. RaFaDa20631 (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete My sense on this article is that the construction needs to be completed before this becomes a notable article. Also, I concur with Respect and encouragement to editors interested in developing Indonesian rail articles goes with a suggestion that posting solid articles on the entire rail system first, then the carriers, then the lines, then the stations, would tend to prevent wasted effort. Whiteguru (talk) 06:28, 20 July 2020 (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.