Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valavanur railway station

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.

Valavanur railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination

)

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

Cannot find any sources that would count towards GNG. Should probably be redirected to a more general article. (t · c) buidhe 21:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 21:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 21:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  talk) 23:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Comment I'm not sure how that applies here. As far as I'm understanding it,

  WP:RAILOUTCOMES is a general list of common outcomes, not a multiple-choice quiz. The outcome here, whatever that ends up being, doesn't have to be among those. XtraJovial (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  It doesn't apply. NemesisAT never actually cites policy in their !votes at AfDs. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per NemesisAT. The chance of their being no sources about a railway station in India are essentially nil, it's just those sources are likely to be in a language other than English and/or offline. Even if, for some bizarre reason, this station was not individually notable, the correct course of action would be to merge and redirect to a broader article (most likely the line it is on) not deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Probably notable, but in it's current state without any sources it fails
  ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 13:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  There is a source, though it is listed as an external link.

  talk) 13:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Draftify as an alternative to deletion. To hell with RAILOUTCOMES, it isn't 2006 anymore and we cannot have articles with zero sources hanging around in mainspace like this. Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia, and this article fails it. Shame on those voting keep and insisting "but there must be sources" - that's not how this works at all (Wikipedia:But there must be sources!). Anyone can claim that anything has sources, but that's not enough, we need to actually be shown specific sources for the article. And if this gets draftified and then moved back into mainspace without improvement, it should just get deleted entirely instead. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Nice theory, but per NemsisAT, there is a source. Thryduulf (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Directly from the "source" in question: "Disclaimer: This website has NO affiliation with the Government-run site of Indian Railways. This site does NOT claim 100% accuracy of fast-changing Rail Information. YOU are responsible for independently confirming the validity of information through other sources." If this counts as a reliable source, I'll eat my shoes. There are zero reliable sources supporting even the existence of this train station. Did you even look at the source? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is clear consensus that we keep railway stations and
  WP:CONSENSUS is a policy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  And consensus can change. It is a foolish argument to say "this must be kept because we always have done things this way". That editors are willing to entirely ignore

  WP:V, one of our most fundamental principles, is extremely concerning. Someone could create an article on a hoax train station and people like you would still vote to keep it without even checking the station even exists. I will be taking this to DRV if it is kept and no editors have identified a single reliable source. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  "People like me"?! What, you mean extremely experienced editors who have been working on building Wikipedia for many years? Consensus can sometimes change, but it has not changed in this case, as recent AfDs show. Claiming that we should ignore consensus because consensus can change is essentially saying that consensus is irrelevant. It is not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Apparently wanting Wikipedia to be verifiable is a minority position. "Extremely experienced editors" should know better than anyone else the importance of WP:V. Without verifiability, we are no better than Fandom or any random person's blog. Oh well, if consensus (among a small group of editors who routinely attend train station AfDs) is more important than ensuring Wikipedia is accurate, so be it. I think it's an incredibly foolish point of view that risks the credibility of Wikipedia as a resource millions of people rely on, but clearly that isn't important to those present in this discussion. I don't know why I waste my time trying to convince others that we shouldn't have totally unverified articles in mainspace when we can't even ensure their accuracy, let alone their notability. It's the same arguments every time, and the arguments that ignore policy to keep policy deficient articles always win solely based on numbers (why do we even use the term !vote when it's literally just counting votes?). Shit articles like this should not be allowed in mainspace. Entirely unsourced and unverified content is useless and actively harmful to Wikipedia.

  I've complained about the notability of many train stations stubs, as NemesisAT can tell you, but his creations are always at least verifiable. This article isn't even verifiable. And when I ask for even a single reliable source to show verifiability, I am totally ignored because THEREMUSTBESOURCES but nobody can actually find or demonstrate said sources exist. The total ignorance of policy in favor of the circular logic of "we keep all train stations because we keep all train stations" fully on display here is extremely disappointing to witness and should concern anyone who cares about verifiability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify at the very least. If there are sources, why aren't they being shown here? If sources can't be found, then that's all the more reason not to keep this article in mainspace. XtraJovial (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Here is a source to demonstrate
  WP:V
  (there is brief coverage over converting the station to a "block station" to increase capacity, whatever that is):

• Nair, Rajesh B.; Varma, M. Dinesh (2019-09-30). "Railways unable to keep pace with demand for services". The Hindu.
  ISSN 0971-751X
  . Retrieved 2022-03-19.

There might be sources in Tamil, but I don't know how to say "Valavanur station" in Tamil, so any Tamil speakers able to check if sources exist? Also courtesy pinging @

WP:V concerns. Jumpytoo Talk 05:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep I added two atlas citations to the article. Nempnet (talk) 11:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. It appears the concerns surrounding

  talk) 14:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep Now that sources have been added. Chaddude (talk) 01:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm confident that the railroad station exists. I'm not exactly sure that the railway station actually has significant coverage beyond that it exists and it needed upgrades. Would anyone who has access to the atlas sources that were added to the article be willing to describe the extent of the depth of the coverage in those sources, and/or show quotes that talk about the station? I'm OK to keep if either of those show sigcov, but it's currently marginal for me without knowing the extent of coverage. —
  talk) 16:57, 23 March 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.