Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valavanur railway station (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to Villupuram–Pondicherry branch line. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valavanur railway station[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)

In the previous previous AfD, we found exactly one source that helps this to satisfy WP:V, but that source does not provide significant coverage of the station. The entries in The Great Indian Railway Atlas and India Railway Atlas & Timetable also do not provide significant coverage of this railroad station. The only other source in the article does not so much as mention the station. I have conducted an extensive search for sources on this topic, but I'm not able to find WP:SIGCOV.

There is now a community consensus that train stations have no inherent notability; we should not presume them notable on the basis that their existence is simply verifiable. Instead, this should be weighed against WP:GNG and relevant WP:SNG criteria, which this article subject fails in every respect. As such, the article should be redirected to Tiruchirappalli railway division#List of railway stations and towns, where the railway station is currently mentioned. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I still feel having an article for every railway station benefits the project and that starting AfDs for potentially thousands of them will be a waste of volunteer time and effort. Keeping individual station articles allows stations to be categorised better (by opening year, closing year, region, etc). It allows station articles to appear on the Special:Nearby feature for mobile users, helping them find relevant content near them. It also allows content to be navigated using “adjacent stations” templates. NemesisAT (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain how this addresses concerns w.r.t. WP:DEL-REASON#8 (i.e. [a]rticles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline)? This doesn't pass WP:GNG and, but it is an artificial geographical feature. WP:NGEO presumes notability for cultural heritage sites or national heritage sites (provided WP:V is satisfied), but this doesn't appear to be one of those. And WP:NGEO doesn't presume notability on the basis that a particular entity is a train station (or any other sort of building or artificial feature related to infrastructure). None of the photographs on India railinfo even indicate that there is any building present. I'm wondering if there is any specific notability guideline that you believe that this train station satisfies. If so, would you please name it? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I reckon it would easily meet WP:GNG if we had access to sources in the local language published during the planning, construction, and opening of the station. However, I decided instead to base my argument on how I feel having this article improves Wikipedia, which is a valid argument per WP:IAR. I note as well that a source has been added by Djflem since your nomination. NemesisAT (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  IAR is for rare exceptions. It doesn't apply here, where you are advocating for a broad exemption; that every train station should have an article. Instead, once a suitable time has passed since the previous RfC, you should open a new one to see if consensus has changed. BilledMammal (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My assessment of the sources as of the most recent revision is as follows:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Southern Railway—Tiruchchirappali Division	Government publication.	Seems like a standard government publication.	Does not so much as mention the station by name.	✘ No
Les chemins de fer coloniaux français	Seems independent	Old (1910s), but seems fine for notability purposes.	The source mentions it as one of two stations on the English side, but does not cover the station itself significantly.	✘ No
The Illustrated Guide to the South Indian Railway	Seems independent	No reason to doubt reliability for notability purposes	The relevant page describes the town of Valavanur, including the town's hotels, roads within the town, the industry of the town, local officials in the town, objects of interest in the town, and sport in the town. The only mention of the station is that a cloth manufactory is three miles south of it, which is not significant coverage of the station.	✘ No
The Great Indian Railway Atlas	Seems independent	No reason to doubt reliability for notability purposes.	The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability.	✘ No
India Railway Atlas & Timetable	Seems independent	No reason to doubt reliability for notability purposes.	The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability.	✘ No
Pharmacographia Indica: A History of the Principal Drugs of Vegetable Origin, Met with in British India, Volume 3 Index and Appendix	Seems independent	No reason to doubt reliability for notability purposes. The sourcce is quite old.	There is a single sentence that mentions/describes the station itself.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

With respect to WP:IAR, I don't think it's really plausible to do this in light of the extremely recent RfC that rejected the claim to the inherent notability of railroad stations. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These edits added three sources. I've already addressed the fact that the article from The Hindu does not provide WP:SIGCOV in my nominating statement, but sources like Google Sites IndianRailDayToday (a train directory) and trainspy (a website for train times) don't provide WP:SIGCOV nor do anything other than show that the train is included in a man-made geographical feature in directories. I still don't see a single source that gives the station itself significant coverage. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ enough attributable information in article. Djflem (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Villupuram–Pondicherry branch line, where it is mentioned. Djflem (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(The change in vote is not based on nominator's rationale/reasoning or because the attributable information in this article was insufficient, but simply because having the information collected in the target enhances, in this case, that article -about a branch line with 5 stations- and thus, the encyclopedia.) Djflem (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, essentially per nom. What makes a train station worthy of its own page is being able to say more than just the bare minimum. It's pretty clear there's been a serious attempt at finding sources, and even still there's quite little to work with here. I see no reason why this article can't be redirected to Villupuram–Pondicherry branch line, where a basic station listing table can be made. All the verifiable information on the present article could easily be contained within a table. Contrast this article with Viluppuram Junction railway station, a station that is a significant junction and has a much greater claim to needing a standalone page (though that article is a mess at present). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above - mere existence doesn't warrant a standalone article. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 01:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Fails WP:GNG, per source analysis above. BilledMammal (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Villupuram–Pondicherry branch line as WP:ATD, with no prejudice for restoration when enough information can be found to create a Start-class article. Also Villianur railway station should be looked at (either WP:BOLDly or via AfD) for consistency reasons. Jumpytoo Talk 17:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jumpytoo: I'd say go for it (redirect) since info has been incorporated into target.Djflem (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll do it if AfD closes with redirect outcomee (or closer can do this if they wish). Jumpytoo Talk 06:36, 30 July 2022 (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.