Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patharkandi 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 per WP:SNOW. Whatever the guidelines say, there's no chance this will be deleted. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Patharkandi railway station

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable railway station. Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. Attempt to redirect to Patharkandi was reverted. Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 21:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

PAGE''' ]]) 14:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is no such thing as a non-notable rail station. WP wisely decided a long time ago that rail stations articles are to be kept as indicated in WP:OUTCOMES and therefore we don't have to flesh out and discuss the merit of tens of thousands that exist and editors' time can be better spent on creating articles and improving existing ones, not to mention avoiding animosity between editors.--Oakshade (talk) 01:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Consensus for at least a decade has been that all railway stations that verifiably exist are notable. Thryduulf (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. Consensus is that all railway stations are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Per WP:BEFORE, I thoroughly checked WP:OUTCOMES before nominating. Despite what Oakshade asserted above, under Rail transport, it says that Subway and railway lines (not stations) often survive AfD and to see the essay at Notability (Railway lines and stations). That latter page then says that for stations you should either follow WP:GNG or you should keep the article if enough verifiable information is available for a comprehensive article (which is not the case here). That page goes on to say "If some source material is available, but is insufficient for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the subject under the article for its parent locality or parent company. If no source material, or only directory-type information (location, function, name, address) can be provided, the subject may not merit mention at all." Since only directory-type information was available, I thought I was erring on the side of inclusionism by proposing a redirect. If the decade-long consensus is that every little concrete slab next to a set of train tracks deserves an article, it should really be listed in WP:OUTCOMES and/or WP:GEOFEAT. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK
 * Consensus doesn't need to be recorded for it to be consensus. See many previous AfD discussions on stations. They're never deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The only time I've seen articles at AfD about verifiably real rail transport stations end as anything other than "keep" is when articles about a group of stations are merged and redirected to an article about the line or system they're on. For heavy rail stations on a main system (i.e. not a heritage railway) the latter almost always happens only if the stations are simply proposed/planned, or existed only briefly many years ago. None of that is true in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "That latter page then says that for stations you should either follow WP:GNG or you should keep the article if enough verifiable information is available for a comprehensive article (which is not the case here)". Of course there's enough verifiable information available for a comprehensive article.  When wast he station built?  (1925 apparently)  Who built it?  How much did it cost?  What company ran trains to it?  How often?  What are the usership statistics over the decades?  What investments have been made in the station?  What trains serve it now?  What economic impact has it had on the region?  This is all information available somewhere because it's impossible for it not to be available.  I personally don't know where because it's a part of the world I'm and most English language WP editors are unfamiliar with and it's hard to know exactly where to find or even look for such information.  An operating station of this age in the US or UK would never even be considered for deletion.  Might this be a case of systemic bias? --Oakshade (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just noting that the main reason I undid the redirection of the article is that (according to the infobox, at least) this station has existed since 1925, wherefore it seemed likely to me that more information was likely to be available in Assamese or other Indian sources. Deor (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Usual practice is to keep all train station articles. Certainly is the practice for the New York City Subway. Another example of WP:GEOBIAS AusLondonder (talk) 09:01, 11 September 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.