Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satna Junction


 * 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 and already moved to Satna Railway Station. JForget 00:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Satna Junction

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No references, article was under watchlist for long time.  Abu Torsam   11:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. All railway stations are notable. See the map at http://www.westcentralrailway.com/ Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What guideline or policy says all railway stations are notable? If there isn't one, then it is just your opinion and thus not a valid Keep argument (and thus will most likely be ignored by the closing admin).  TJ   Spyke   15:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Eastmain (talk • contribs)  13:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  Eastmain (talk • contribs)  13:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Consensus has always found that rail stations are notable. Most likely many more sources exist in Hindi. --Oakshade (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Additionally, it's a major city station. No one would ever think of deleting an article of such a heavily used station in a city over over 250,000 if the station were in the UK, or the US. This appears a case of good-faith systemic bias.--Oakshade (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, where is the GUIDELINE or POLICY that says that? If none exist, then it is NOT automatically notable and it has to pass the general notability guidelines.  TJ   Spyke   18:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, the policy is WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus has consistently found rail stations to be inherently notable.  Never has an existing station been deleted.  I recall a tram stop, which was basically a glorified bus stop article, being deleted, but never an actual rail station.  WP:NOTABILITY states in its heading: It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.  Consensus has long since demonstrated that rail stations are one of those common sense exceptions. --Oakshade (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete No indications it is notable, fails WP:N (and the above 2 users are wrong, railroad stations are NOT automatically notable, that is just their personal opinions).  TJ   Spyke   18:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Consensus does state that railway stations are generally considered notable, and besides, this is a heavily-used station in a major city according to the sources, which makes it additionally notable. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 22:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I strongly disagree that anything is inherently notable and would support an effort to change this line of thinking. As pointed out above, nowhere within our formal policies is anything written that railway stations deserve a free pass from our guidelines and policies. The point of argument shouldn't be whether this is a railway station or not, it should be whether the inclusion of this particular railway station would be encyclopedic.  Them From  Space  23:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact many things are considered inherently notable; towns and mountains, for instance. The reason is because of the presumption of sources.  It would be impossible for a major rail station in a city of over a quarter-million that has over 40 trains per day not to have sources.  The problem is this station is in a country where English is not the common language and, unlike in the US, many sources are not easily available on the web.  St. Paul Amtrak station, Miami (Amtrak station) and Detroit (Amtrak station) all have only two trains per day, serve way less passengers and yet we don't delete these because sources are easily available to us.  I was lucky to find this book which is a debate in the Indian Parliament which had significant debate on the expansion of this rail station in 1981 because English was the official language in Parliament.  If we were Hindi speakers, we'd likely find more coverage. --Oakshade (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Established practice is to keep articles on  all rail stations, major and minor. this is in any case a major one and should not even come into question. More generally, it is much more rational to regard classes of things that are OK to write articles on, than spend effort disputing which individual few of them might not be. Each AfD discussion takes away time I could use for writing articles.  My estimate is that the total effort in even a simple AfD like this one is about the same as it would take to write an article--quite apart from the effect on the spirit of the community. Every opportunity for conflict evokes negative feelings.     DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh. Despite this, I managed to research and write this entire article since this AfD began.--Oakshade (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Snow keep: Satna is a city of over 225,000 people. Per above discussions and well-established consensus an article on the railway station serving the city is not only acceptable, but essential. Mjroots (talk) 06:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Prior consensus has always found rail stations to be notable. -- Big  Dom  18:08, 12 March 2010 (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.