Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cipatat 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 keep.  MBisanz  talk 18:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Cipatat railway station

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Have you seen Articles for deletion/Cilame railway station? It was deleted because not notable enough to have an article itself. And we have to concur that the whole state of the Javanese railroad articles is pretty poor according to

And we inform you that in Indonesian Wikipedia, I (RaFaDa20631, formerly Alqhaderi Aliffianiko) have pointed about special and unusual notability standards for Indonesian railway stations, dealing with small stations:


 * All accidents and incidents at the station must be referenced with four good sources criteria: reliable, significant, independent, and secondary. All railway stations must have a timetable linked to official site of the operator. Articles must have at least one picture depicting the station building, either active, ghost, or not, and must be uploaded on Commons.
 * All railway lines in Indonesia are considered "notable" even the article itself rely on primary written (not orally) sources.
 * All active stations are considered "notable", but not always for ghosts or defuncts.
 * All active services are considered "notable", but defunct or planned services may be not notable enough.

Hint: use Train Stations in Indonesia to find what the station's name is notable or significant enough. RaFaDa20631 (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. RaFaDa20631 (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. RaFaDa20631 (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete as the article at the current state didn't meet WP:STATION standards. . while I understand Indonesian Wikipedia might have different consensus regarding the notability of Indonesian stations, I don't think that the consensus applied to en-Wikipedia. While I understand regional differences, it is most unwise to use different rules for different region in the en-wiki. SunDawn (talk) 09:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, the article has been reviewed by Onel5969, the deletion discussion is not relevant. for nominator, please see log before creating nominations deletions. 103.143.209.202 (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure what the deletion rationale is here? Nominator cited Indonesian Wikipedia's rules, but this is an active station so it would meet their guidelines. Jumpytoo Talk 10:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Strong consensus at Articles for deletion/Changxing railway station that railway station articles should be kept. I don't follow the reasons for deletion here - just because an article is of poor quality doesn't mean it should be deleted. NemesisAT (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me explain you why I object the "strong" consensus. For non-notable railway stations, we can merge all non-notable stations: no intermodal connections, situated on a rural setting with little or no ridership, according to WP:NOTTIMETABLE. As a comparison, it's okay to translate all KRL Commuterline stations due to its high ridership. However, Indonesian small stations are mostly little or no ridership (or as a passing loop-like system which does not serve passengers). However, the rail lines are not created or translated, and we suggest a solid rail transport article hierarchy on creating all the systems first, then the companies, then the lines, and finally, the stations. RaFaDa20631 (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. Sounds like more effort is needed in creating Indonesian lines. Deleting individual station articles won't help us with that! NemesisAT (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've created the Manggarai–Padalarang railway article now. NemesisAT (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. This feels less like a deletion nomination and more like a policy proposal. The standards of the Indonesia Wikipedia should not govern whether articles are kept or not on the English Wikipedia. If the latter chooses to adopt the former then that's a different matter, but heavy railway stations that are in active use are generally kept, and no reason has been advanced for why we should treat those in Indonesia differently. Mackensen (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Agree with Mackensen. This is looking pointy. It's a mainline rail station serving a city with a population of over 133,000 an apparently it is considered of cultural heritage status. It's impossible for there not to be extensive government reports, budgets and analysis.  Such a station in the US or UK would unlikely be nominated for AfD.  Is this a case of systemic bias?Oakshade (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per above comments. OktaRama2010 (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is strong consensus that all railway stations are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2021 (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.