Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vedchha 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vedchha railway station

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason

Reviewed as a part of new article review/ curation process. No indication of wp:notability. No suitable coverage in references. As the two sentence article says, it is a small railway station. North8000 (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GAZ and the outcome of many other nominations of railway station articles. This station is not only verified to exist, but it is open to traffic. Mjroots (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:GAZ seems to say the opposite. (I.E. nothing to bypass WP:GNG) The closest clause for inclusion seems to say that buildings need both: "may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance" and have "significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources" to establish such. North8000 (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Mjroots. It is a mainline rail station and all mainline stations are kept as its impossible for extensive historical reports, surveys and analysis to exist, whether government or private and are inherent part of communities and in this case, as sources confirm, played a part in the growth of this population center. A similar mainline rail station in the UK or US wouldn't even be considered for deletion. Is this a case of systemic bias? Oakshade (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not systemic bias, it is a matter of following the guidelines. And I would do the same for the same situation anywhere in the world. Mentioning "systemic bias" against someone who is following the relevant guidelines is out of line. If y'all want to decide something different based on some unwritten accepted practices, fine with me. North8000 (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We generally keep all articles on railway stations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I cited some more sources in the article yesterday. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above, especially Necrothesp. Railway stations are important landmarks of any city. So it is obvious that such articles should be kept. --Cedix (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this doesn't meet the general notability guideline. Per WP:GAZ, Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. --DannyS712 (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So what about the sources that I added yesterday, which were just those that I could find in English in a few minutes? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the station mentioned in the Sociological Bulletin sources (but I can only see the first page of each); other than the offline source, which I couldn't check, the only source I see that helps to establish notability is https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/surat/Thousands-stranded-at-South-Gujarat-railway-stations/articleshow/53053769.cms, and the station is only mentioned as part of a list of stations. I just don't see significant coverage DannyS712 (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The station is not mentioned in the abstracts, which is why the references were to the articles, not the abstracts. Your lack of access to the articles does not invalidate them. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712: We have long had a consensus that all railway stations are notable. See WP:RAILOUTCOMES. In sixteen years of editing I actually have never seen a station article deleted at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for that consensus is that it is next to impossible for a railway station to exist without reliable sources being written about it, but they are often not online or not in the Roman alphabet, so it can be difficult to find them in the timeframe of an AfD discussion. The reason I added some sources in English that I could find quickly, and did something similar with Lilaste Station (AfD), was to demonstrate that there are sources even for very small railway stations in non-Anglophone places. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Cedix, DannyS712, and North8000: if you or anyone else wants copies of the two articles in the Sociological Bulletin that Phil Bridger cited, you can send me an email via Special:EmailUser/MrClog and I'll send you copies of both. --MrClog (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I requested and you sent them. The were not searchable but I did a scan type read on both of them. I could have missed a brief mention of the the station but did not see any coverage of it. North8000 (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

North8000: strange, for me they are searchable. When searching "Vedchha", I get a result at the bottom of p. 4 of Industrial Evolution of Navsari and two results on p. 77 of The Growth of Townships in South Gujarat: Maroli Bazar. MrClog (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) They verify the content that I put into the article. Other people can find other sources and add their content to the article. That is how a wiki works. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, The sourcing discussions here are not about verifying content (WP:V) , they are about meeting the coverage requirements in wp:notability and the SNG. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of notability guidelines, and the reason they were created, is to ensure that we can write an article that conforms to the basic content policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Such an article can clearly be written about this station, because it already has been written, so there's no need for wikilawyering about the specifics of any guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, with the AFD, I am trying to do my job properly which includes applying the notability guidelines as written, not "wikilawyering", so please don't start such unwarranted insults. I have no preference as to whether or not this article is kept. BTW, the purpose of wp:notability is to be one of the two main sets of criteria to determine whether or not it should have a separate article in Wikipedia. ANY writing, including things that shouldn't be articles can be made to comply with WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, so compliance with those does not address or answer the wp:notability question. North8000 (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps we should discuss this one a bit more thoroughly and let it set a precedent or give guidance. It does not have the type of coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. As detailed above, the SNG is actually a little tougher then GNG and this doers not meet it. The common outcomes page (which isn't a policy or guideline) says "Existing heavy rail stations on a main system (i.e. not a heritage railway) are generally kept at AfD. Other stations are usually kept or merged and redirected to an article about the line or system they are on." It also links to a notability essay on this topic. The essay just weighs in on the the more obvious extremes (briefly, yes if there is significant coverage, no if it's on a light rails line) and gives no guidance on the situations in between. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Reinforcing that I am neutral on this. Doesn't meet the notability guidelines, as detailed above. Unclear where it falls under those kept in common practice but most likely does. (I was unaware of this common practice which is contrary to guidelines when I AFD'd this) Appears to be a small station on a heavy rail line. Editor has added references to where it now has 7 references. North8000 (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.