Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halvad 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. There is a consensus that if this article were to be deleted, it should be as part of a mass discussion that includes similar railway station articles. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Halvad railway station

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am not seeing enough independent coverage of this station to merit an article. All I personally find is railway timetables. — fr&thinsp;+  17:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. We generally keep all railway stations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on what policy? Or just because other were kept in the past, because others were kept in the past etc. The Banner  talk 00:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Relevant policy here would be WP:NBUILD (infrastructure). There's also the essay, WP:STATION. All of which basically sums to "go with WP:GNG". I am unqualified to judge notability here, but at the very least this should be a redirect to Viramgam–Maliya Miyana section or some other suitable article. Lowercaserho (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Consensus, which is the primary deciding policy, wisely decided long ago that all rail stations are notable. This way thousands of editors don't waste time and energy fleshing out and debating the retention of articles on the tens of thousands of stations when editors efforts are much better spent on creating new articles and improving existing ones.  For this and most stations, it's impossible for in depth coverage like extensive government reports and budgets to not exist.  An article for such a station serving a town of over 60,000 (which this one does) in the UK or US would never even be considered for deletion even if there was zero coverage in the article.  Is this a case of systemic bias? Oakshade (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keeping railway stations because they exist is indeed a systematic bias. The Banner  talk 12:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep the thousands of other similar article on rail stations speaks to the consensus. Ths issue could be addressed by RFC, but picking off this one is not appropriate. MB 02:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - My understanding is that railway stations are inherently notable .... but I agree with the above there should be some sort of RFC on it
 * (SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a perfect example - "Keep because schools are notbale as per SCHOOLOUTCOMES" → RFC takes place → Everyone more or less voted to do away with the essay → Schools are no longer inherently notable (so it can easily be changed).
 * Anyway keep. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:14, 20 January 2019 (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.