Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diesel Loco Shed, Kalyan


 * 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. I did briefly consider redirecting to Kalyan Junction railway station, but I think this is a fairly unlikely search term. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Diesel Loco Shed, Kalyan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability. The only independent source in the article is not about this shed, but about an Electro shed established in 1928 (the Diesel shed is established in either 1967 (infobox) or 1987 (body of text). Prod removed without any improvement (which isn't necessary technically, but doesn't explain why the ProD was supposedly invalid and doesn't solve the problems of course). Fram (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ivec os (t) 10:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ivec os (t) 10:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Kalyan is a major railway hub. We cover its facilities in other pages such as Kalyan, Kalyan Junction railway station and Loco Shed, Kalyan.  This page should be kept for integration and development of this material per our editing policy.  Deletion would not be appropriate because it would be disruptive. Andrew D. (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So no evidence that this is in any way a notable shed then? Kalyan is a two-line section without any information on this or other sheds, just that the station is important: this is not a reason to keep this article. Kalyan Junction railway station is a gem with indispensable information like "Waiting Rooms are available on platform Nos. 4 & 5 of with and without air condition. There is a separate 'ladies-only' waiting room on platform 4. Canteen is available on the long distance trains platform 4&5. snacks corners can be located on the entire length of the platforms." Yep, having more articles like this is what our editing policy proscribes. Loco Shed, Kalyan: should this article exist? Perhaps, but even then there is no reason that if we have one article on a perhaps notable shed, we suddenly have to keep articles on other non notable sheds as well. Nothing in your favourite WP:PRESERVE policy claims that pages should be kept "for integration and development" if the information is on a subject which lacks notability to start with. There is nothing "disruptive" about the deletion of this material, no other article would suddenly become deficient or unintelligible, there would be no gap in the coverage of notable subjects. Please support your "keep" with actually relevant arguments and policies, not the "I can use it for every page I like" PRESERVE shortcut. Fram (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The relevant policies here are WP:V and WP:PRESERVE and these are adequately satisfied by sources such as this. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That source obviously is not an independent source. Not everything that can be verified to exist (which is not under dispute) should be preserved, other arguments are needed as to why it should be included in enwiki. Fram (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That source is adequate to demonstrate the significance of the place, as noted by Jaywardhan009 below. I do not accepts Fram's view and his bludgeoning is vexatious.  My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a locomotive shed, it does what it is supposed to do. That's all that source demonstrates. That you find someone pointing out the fallacies and errors in your arguments "vexatious" is your problem, but the best way to decrease your annoyance would be to present better arguments, not make unsubstantiated claims. People get by now that you don't accept my view, but that doesn't change the fact that you haven't provided a single independent reliable source about this shed so far. Fram (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to jump through Fram's hoops especially as his argument is not based upon policy whereas mine is. There are sensible alternatives to deletion and so it is reasonable to prefer them per our editing policy.  My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * PRESERVE is about removing some information in an article or not, it doesn't deal with whether a subject should have a standalone article in the first place. Anyway, in WP:V, the other policy you quoted, we find "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Since this article is not based on such sources, it has no place on enwiki. This is, as you well know, what WP:N is about, but as you somehow need the link to an actual policy and not the probably most widely accepted or applied guideline on enwiki, you now have it straight from your own policy. Further down in WP:V we find "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." So my hoops are essentially the hoops you find in basic policies, not something I have invented. Fram (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Fram is now resorting to an essay to prop up his argument and that's even weaker than a guideline. I remain content with my policy-based argument.  We have a reasonable topic here and we should preserve the information about it as part of our coverage of the Indian railway system. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My quotes come straight from the policy, and include a link to an essay (link already in that policy, not my addition). Apparently only your general pointers to policies are acceptable, but my policy quotes aren't? So no, I'm not "resorting to an essay", I give specific applicable policy quotes, not some vague pointers and claims that this article must be retained because "it as (sic) part of our coverage of the Indian railway system". Nearly every article that gets deleted is "part of coverage" of something, be it some music scene, all staff at a university, all people active in a sport, ... That doesn't stop us deleting such articles of course. This shed has not been shown to be a notable part of the Indian railway system as evidenced by independent sources, not just by your claims. Fram (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am unmoved by Fram's wikilawyering. This is my !vote and Fram should please cease trying to badger me out of it.  The topic seems quite respectable and it seems quite reasonable that we should keep it for further work.  Deletion is not appropriate. Andrew D. (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you don't like replies, stop replying, simple. But if you do reply, don't include false claims like "Fram is now resorting to an esay" when I gave you two quotes from a policy you brought up (in general) as supporting keep, when it actually favours deletion of such articles. Fram (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The replies are mainly tiresome for the others who have to wade through this. The essential point of WP:V is that we need reliable sources and we have those.  WP:IS and WP:N are essays and guidelines which are inferior to our policies.  My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * This article is regarding diesel shed which hauls India's fastest train Mumbai CST - Karmali Tejas Express.Plz check Mechanical Department - Kalyan Diesel Shed. This a government website. Year was by mistakenly written. This India's largest diesel loco shed.Jaywardhan009 (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2018 IST
 * Notability is not inherited. You have to show, from reliable, independent sources, that this shed itself (not the locomotives in it, not the train station, but the shed) has received significant, indepth attention, beyond routine coverage or passing mentions. Fram (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * When there is a government site which is giving you a reliable and independent sources what else you what for Notability. If you what these are more article related to it ‘Super fast’ Tejas Express gets its own special, powerful engine that can power the train at 160 km/hr, Mumbai-Goa Tejas Express gets new diesel engine, becomes faster and safer, Tejas Express gets 3 newly designed locomotive engines, Tejas Express gets exclusive locomotive and This official PDF of Central Railway of India BRIEF HISTORY Jaywardhan009 (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2018 IST
 * What we need are articles about the shed. The articles you present are about a train or a locomotive, and mention the shed in passing (in one line or so). Fram (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sir, plz google search it what is Central Railway zone of Indian Railway. If you are saying there is no reliable source then my Government is also not reliable. If you google Diesel Loco Shed, Kalyan you will find these articles where this loco shed name in it and most it are recognized newspeper of India and PDF will tell you all history of it. Jaywardhan009 (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2018 IST
 * I said that Indian government is not an independent source, not that it isn't a reliable source. A government producing documents about their railways is not an indication of notability. The newspaper sources are not about the shed, they are about locomotives and mention the shed in passing only. Fram (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sir, do you know about India, only Kaylan railway station there are 246 train. There are two loco shed shed located in Kalyan, one is electric which has 201 and diesel one 67 engine. This two different shed are located 10 Km meter of the station which is suburb Mumbai. According to you Government of India is not an independent source but in India whole rail network is run by Government of India then this make it a independent source and if Government of India is not an independent source where you will find coverage of the Indian railway system please tell me. The link which I send is about train which has got special engine of Diesel Loco Shed, Kalyan which does maintenance and repair work of the engine and this engine is use for this train only that article is also about this loco shed. Jaywardhan009 22:44, 15 January 2018 IST
 * Hmm...I'm an Indian and I'm not slightly convinced.Every car-shed/yard/cabins could be always sourced to IR but it hardly means that WP shall have articles on all of them.Enough of this default notability craze. Winged Blades Godric 17:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Kalyan Junction railway station, which can easily contain any info.TheLongTone (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * delete There is no real claim to notability in this article, and it's not clear that it has any particular association with the passenger station where the coord tag lands. The notion that train sheds/engine houses are intrinsically notable is absurd. Mangoe (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sir these are the 19°14'5"N 73°8'14"E coordinate of the google map. If engine the shed are not according to wikipedia policy you can delete all the article related to it also Project India' Railway section. I can improve the article by writing essay on it. Jaywardhan009 22:44, 15 January 2018 IST
 * Delete Non notable fails WP:GNG as sources are passing mentions.  Also the rationale of having an article like this conflicts WP:NOTWEBHOST Hagennos (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The design of new commuter passenger train engines and paint jobs done at the facility as well as other maintenance and engineering projects done at this shed are often covered in Newspapers as well as news of the major trains kept there. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per Hagennos. Violates WP:NOTWEBHOST as it's trivial factoids and routine coverage that kind of verifies existence but does nothing to confer notability. Reyk YO! 09:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep very notable infrastructure. I reject the argument that because the substantial coverage is from the government it is insufficiently independent. The Library of Congress and National Register of Historic Places are run by the U.S. government and certainly have the ability to confer notability onna subject here. The Indian government documents covering this subject are more than adequate to establish notability. It's also not true that is hasn't received independent coverage.
 * Being included in the Library of Congress is not a sign of notability, they include every book, magazine, ... printed in the US and much more beyond. The National Register of Historic Places is not the owner or user of the buildings in the Register, they are an independent "award" (for lack of a better word) and thus they give notability to the places in the register. The Indian Government is the owner/user of this building, not an independent organisation like the NRHP is for the buildings. You may be right that there is independent coverage, but you need to provide some evidence of this. Simply claiming that such coverage exists is not sufficient. Fram (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect to Kalyan Junction railway station.Per persuasive argument by nominator.I searched Hindi dailies and there are nothing more than scant trivial mentions.And, AD, whilst it's good to see you back with shades of the bygone ARS-days, please stop having the false notion that your argument is policy-based, when almost-often they are to the contrary. Winged Blades Godric 17:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, not sensing any notability in this topic other than trivial mentions and railfan content. Ajf773 (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2018 (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.