Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hapur Junction 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.
The result was keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hapur Junction 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)
Non-notable railway station; only reference is a fansite. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Actual rail station (see WP:RAILOUTCOMES) serving a city of over a quarter million people plus its surrounding populus. Such a station in the US or UK would never even be considered for AfD. Might this be a case of WP:BIAS? --Oakshade (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, A little good faith would probably not be amiss here. Bad argument in any case. Articles with similar (crap) sourcing are commonly before AfD. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- The notability requirements stipulate the existence of sources, not what's currently in the article. It's impossible for a major station to exist without extensive government reports, surveys, traffic and environmental studies, not to mention its importance to the city and region it serves. Question; Why was this article nominated for deletion within 9 minutes of its creation?[1] --Oakshade (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, A little good faith would probably not be amiss here. Bad argument in any case. Articles with similar (crap) sourcing are commonly before AfD. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- OK, let's keep things WP:CIVIL. If, as Oakshade says above the station is real and serves a significant number of people, it ought not to be difficult to find WP:RS which give notability, notwithstanding of the lack of sources currently on the page. JMWt (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as a fairly clear-cut case that meets the criteria in the essay (not policy) at WP:STATION#Stations. The article has enough sources as it stands now and although the second paragraph appears unreferenced, the info there is easily recoverable from the source in the first sentence. Uanfala (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per long consensus that all railway stations are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per Oakshade. Nordic Dragon 09:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- 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.