Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Railway stations in Burundi

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 DELETE. postdlf (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Railway stations in Burundi[edit]

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

There are no railway stations in Burundi. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (That's the best AfD reason I've seen in a long time ;-) There are apparently no railways at all in Burundi, though there are plans for some. Until something is actually built, Transport in Burundi#Railways would seem to suffice. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And all the stuff about proposed routes is almost completely unsourced - of the sources there are, one is a forum and one is a general African Railways site -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are a lot of rail articles like this which use those two sources. In terms of reliability of sources, they aren't too bad in one sense - they mostly just repeat what other media have said. Unfortunately, there's a gap between reports and reality; every month some grand new plan is announced for rail infrastructure in the developing world, but it doesn't get built. Hence articles like this can accumulate a "timeline" full of different proposals, with or without sources, but nothing will actually change on the ground. bobrayner (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy snowball delete, per nom. Mjroots (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm usually in support of rail stations, however if premise of this article is factually inaccurate, then I will have to say delete.--Oakshade (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't object to deletion but some of the content could usefully be transferred to Rail transport in Burundi. Biscuittin (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – All of the sourced or sourceable content here would be best placed within Transport in Burundi, a 3kB article that is crying out for expansion. It is a disservice to the encyclopedia to split out multiple stubs when the parent article is left so sparse. cf: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rail transport in Burundi --RexxS (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plans are developing to build railways in Burundi. Tabletop (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - By golly, the nominator IS RIGHT. Delete as an exercise in crystal balling. Wikipedia will still be here in 2014 when there will hopefully be something to actually describe. Gotta run, time for me to get to work on my List of native snakes of Hawaii and Rabies deaths in New Zealand articles... Carrite (talk) 03:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If there are no stations, then there's no need for an article. Plans aren't sufficient (WP:CRYSTAL), at least for a whole separate article. If someone wants to copy whatever useful info into the general railways article, that's fine, but until there's something more concrete (literally) this doesn't belong. oknazevad (talk) 06:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator - I cleaned up a lot of railways-stations-in-countries-without-railways articles a while ago but there was some resistance to deletion (the Chad one, for instance, is now a redirect). If the community decides that this one is worth deleting then I might bring a few more to AfD. bobrayner (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not only is this a case of WP:CRYSTAL, but it is also essentially unsourced. The Rwanda rail plans on track reference is about "feasibility and route studies" of a railway to Rwanda, and merely speculates that "Extensions to Bujumbura in Burundi and the Eastern DRC are foreseen as coming later", whilst the other reference is to a web forum that vaguely refers to something from two years ago which has probably fallen by the wayside. Tim PF (talk) 08:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also:

bobrayner (talk) 09:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2011 (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.