Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RMSP 16 railway station, Melbourne

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 merge to Mornington railway line. T. Canens (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMSP 16 railway station, Melbourne[edit]

[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)

This closed, unused railway station (although it appears to have barely been a station at all) doesn't seem very notable. It is unreferenced, and information included in the article appears rather vague. – numbermaniac 13:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 13:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 13:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mornington railway line. SpinningSpark 19:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All railway stations are notable, including flag stops. This includes disused stations. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No they're not. There is nothing in guidelines that says flag stops, or any kind of station, are intrinsically notable and should have a stand-alone article. Even the essay Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations) recommends merging non-notable stations: If a non-notable line or station has its own article, be bold and merge the article into a parent article... and explicitly on minor lines For proposed or planned stations, historic railways stations that only existed briefly, or stations on metro, light rail, tram, people mover, or heritage railway lines, if insufficient source material is available for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the station in an article about the line or system that the station is on. SpinningSpark 07:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Eastmain. All rail stations are considered notable per long standing consensus. Oakshade (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Please point to where such a consensus is documented. I don't believe there is such a consensus; WP:RAILOUTCOMES 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.. SpinningSpark 14:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is documented of all stations being kept. WP consensus wisely decided long ago to retain all rail stations. This way we don't have the colossal waist of editors' time fleshing out the notability of the tens of thousands of stations when editors time should be better spent on creating new articles of notable topics and improving existing ones. Oakshade (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You keep repeating that consensus has decided to keep all stations without any evidence whatsoever. Wikipedia guidelines are the documentation of our consensus and, as I have shown above, they explicitly contradict what you claim about stations. You have not pointed to a single policy, guideline, essay, or discussion that backs up your position. SpinningSpark 12:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is every AfD on mainline rail stations. Oakshade (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstrably not. But just for yucks, mind linking to a half dozen of these AfDs putatively backing up your assertion? That being said, having to back up assertions of notability (even for "tens of thousands of stations," an absurd bit of hyperbole if I've ever heard one) is not a colossal "waist" of time, but a fundamental policy of Wikipedia. Ravenswing 18:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstrably so. You only want half a dozen to convince you of the assertion that mainline rail stations are always kept? How about over three full dozens? [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] It would be easy but somewhat time-consuming to bring up three full dozen more if I didn't have an actual life. There are some proposed station articles that have been deleted and the occasional tram stop, but existing or having existed mainline stations have always been kept. Oakshade (talk) 04:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A long list of keeps (most of which were kept for other reasons) does not demonstrate that all stations are kept. This is the fallacy of faulty generalization. SpinningSpark 08:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact most of these AfDs were kept due to the precedent that we keep all mainline station articles. You had requested 6 former AfDs to convince you of the assertion that mainline rail stations are always kept. From barely a look above, here's 15. [38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52] Now you've been provided with way beyond what you were requesting to convince you of the precedent that all mainline station articles are retained.Oakshade (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply not true. I am seeing people argue in many of those discussions that there are, in fact, reliable sources for the station under discussion. For instance, the first item on your list has Three seconds with Google satisifes WP:V..., and by the way, that one, and a number of others appear on both lists, so you can't add the two lists together to get a new total. For physical stations on major lines, I would be inclined to let them be, either if they do not strictly comply with GNG. But a flag stop on a disused rural branch line? That's starting to take the piss out of the goodwill of the community. This claim that there is consensus that all stations are intrinsically notable no matter what seems to have been going on for years despite a total failure to get it written into any SNG. I'm inclined to start a RFC after when AFD is over to settle once and for all what the community position really is on this. SpinningSpark 13:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was the point. These were extracted from the first list to demonstrate you've been provided with much more than what you were requesting to be convinced that all mainline stations are retained. For that first one when the nom said "fails WP:V", [53], passing WP:V in itself is not a reason for an article to survive AfD but stipulating real precedent that all mainline stations are retained does and that's exactly what happened in that AfD. In fact most of the of iVotes are "All railway stations are considered to be notable" or similar and even the nom brings up the same counter you are here with "All railway stations are considered to be notable. -- Where is this policy established?" with the response "Consensus over many AfDs. That's how consensus is always established." For an RfC on rail stations retention, already occurred this year with extensive discussion and the proposal went nowhere. Oakshade (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn't a mainline station. It's not mainline. It's not even a station, it's a flag stop. So your rationale is pretty much a strawman argument. SpinningSpark 15:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) Again, you make the claim, but provide no evidence. Has anyone done a survey of AFD results that show that every station put to AFD ended as keep? Such results are collected at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes which pretty robustly contradicts you. In any case, your claim is easily falsified by counterexample: merge, redirect, redirect, delete, redirect. Have you any examples of flag stops that were kept because they were as station when they did not meet GNG? SpinningSpark 18:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond that, it's amusing how many of those AfDs Oakshade threw up closed Keep for reasons other than "all stations are notable" -- some because substantive sources were discovered, a couple on the premise (with which I agree) that nominating an article for deletion less than a minute after it's created is obnoxious. Ravenswing 05:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On top of that, flag stops and barely-used sidings tend to get redirected or merged, eg. [54]. Reyk _YO! 05:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mornington railway line. This article contains no sources, and is about a flag stop that was never even really a train station. There is no such thing as automatic or intrinsic notability. Assuming the information is even accurate, it would be better to present this information in a larger article than diluting it over a multitude of microstubs. Reyk _YO! 14:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Spinning spark rationale and recommendation of Reyk - this is not notable enough for an article. Lubbad85 (☎) 21:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mornington railway line. The only "All X are notable ..." is when they're followed "... if they meet the provisions of the GNG." That being said, I would appreciate Eastmain and Oakshade explaining from where they get the notion of a guideline or consensus stipulating that every flag stop is notable -- or else retracting their unfounded suppositions. Ravenswing 03:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mornington railway line. Not all anything are notable; notability always depends on source coverage. That seems to be lacking here, but it would fit fine in the parent. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Although it is certainly true, despite the claims of some, that there is a consensus that all railways stations should have articles, established over many, many AfDs (which is what makes consensus - it really doesn't have to be written down anywhere), I'm really not sure that this counts as a railway station (since there is no consensus that tram stops, for instance, should have an article, and this is pretty much the same thing, even though trams do usually stop at all stops!). -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2019 (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.