Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanpur Bridge Left Bank railway station

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. czar  19:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kanpur Bridge Left Bank railway station[edit]

Kanpur Bridge Left Bank railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem notable Lakun.patra (talk) 13:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep precedent is that almost all railway stations that verfiably do or did exist are notable, given that sources about them are usually plentiful. In almost all other cases, station articles are merged and redirected to the article about the line or system that serves them. There is no problem with verifying the existence of this station, and other stations on the route all seem to have their own articles, so what this needs is improvement not deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Mackensen (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Thyduulf. The community wisely decided years ago that all train stations are notable. This relieves editors of the burden of fleshing out the detailed notability of the tens of thousands of rail stations throughout the world when time and resources should be better spent creating new articles of notable topics and improving existing ones.--Oakshade (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2014 (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.