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 delete under G7. Deletion requested by author that created article to prove a WP:POINT. Deletion is without prejudice to an article being created that demonstrates WP:GNG is met by WP:V from WP:RSs. Mjroots ( talk) 12:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC) reply

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

This railway station is not notable. The article fails WP:GNG. The article should be redirected to its line according to Wikipedia:Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations)#Stations. Because that article does not exist, it should be REDIRECTED to Western Railway. Rhadow ( talk) 20:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Indian-railway related AFDs:


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir ( talk) 21:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir ( talk) 21:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - for the exact same reasons in the other mainline rail station AfD started by the same nom. WP consensus wisely decided long ago that all rail stations are notable. This ensures thousands of editors don't waste there time and energy fleshing out and debating the retention of articles on the tens of thousands of stations when editors efforts are much better spent on creating new articles and improving existing ones. For this and most stations, it's impossible for in depth coverage like extensive government reports and budgets to not exist. Oakshade ( talk) 23:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC) reply
"[I]t's impossible for in depth coverage like extensive government reports and budgets to not exist." This argument is based on faith, rather than demonstrable evidence. It is a self-sealing argument, a logical fallacy. Rhadow ( talk) 23:33, 2 February 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.
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 delete under G7. Deletion requested by author that created article to prove a WP:POINT. Deletion is without prejudice to an article being created that demonstrates WP:GNG is met by WP:V from WP:RSs. Mjroots ( talk) 12:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC) reply

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

This railway station is not notable. The article fails WP:GNG. The article should be redirected to its line according to Wikipedia:Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations)#Stations. Because that article does not exist, it should be REDIRECTED to Western Railway. Rhadow ( talk) 20:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Indian-railway related AFDs:


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir ( talk) 21:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir ( talk) 21:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - for the exact same reasons in the other mainline rail station AfD started by the same nom. WP consensus wisely decided long ago that all rail stations are notable. This ensures thousands of editors don't waste there time and energy fleshing out and debating the retention of articles on the tens of thousands of stations when editors efforts are much better spent on creating new articles and improving existing ones. For this and most stations, it's impossible for in depth coverage like extensive government reports and budgets to not exist. Oakshade ( talk) 23:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC) reply
"[I]t's impossible for in depth coverage like extensive government reports and budgets to not exist." This argument is based on faith, rather than demonstrable evidence. It is a self-sealing argument, a logical fallacy. Rhadow ( talk) 23:33, 2 February 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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook