Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hengoed 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Hermione1980 00:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hengoed railway station

No claim to notability--Carabinieri 12:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I am indifferent about this deletion - but in its defence, see Valley Lines page which (someone) pointed railway links for many such pages. Plus, there are a lot of railway enthusiasts in this country who might expand this page a lot. --Gedge67 13:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I don't know if railway stations are kept as a matter of form. If they are, then this should of course stay. Otherwise, as stations go, this one appears to be just about as unremarkable as it's possible for a place to be! Unless someone can prove otherwise, I say Delete OK. I'm persuaded. Keep Marcus22 13:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep railway stations. Even though this is a very short stub, I think it is valid since context is provided by specifying which railway it lies on. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents#Cities_and_villages which says that subway stations are inherently notable by precedent, I think railway stations are of comparable notability. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silver Street railway station for another deletion debate on a small railway station. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Railway stations have the potential to become decent articles. When was the station first opened? How many people use it? Who designed the buildings? Have any famous trains passed through it? How often to trains run and where do they go? Have there been any accidents at the station? and so on. There's lots a railway enthusiast could add. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Lack of notability is not a valid deletion criterion for railway stations.--Nicodemus75 18:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Nicodemus75. Carioca 22:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Theresa Knott —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apyule (talk • contribs) Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I still don't understand what makes every railway station notable. Wouldn't that require us to write thousands of articles in order to have an article about every railway station in English-speaking countries, let alone the whole world? Couldn't the same concept be applied to, e.g., post offices or malls? What sets railway stations apart from other buildings that makes them particularly notable?--Carabinieri 19:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The question of whether we should have an article is different from the question if we can have an article. I don't believe that we need to have articles on every railway station in the world, but when such station articles come, I think we can keep them. Regarding shopping malls and post offices, I think there is some disagreement among Wikipedians, personally I don't find them very notable because what is in them are very mundane, ordinary thing (shops, offices and paperwork). One might argue that a railway station also is mundane, but for some reason there are several rail enthusiasts while there are very few shopping mall enthusiasts (i.e. people interested in the mall itself). Several webpages endeavor to provide info on various stations, which illustrates that there are several people interested in such information. One might also argue that many of these station articles will be little more than stubs and should be merged with the railway line (which I think most would agree, are inherently notable). I have some sympathy with that view, but merging in a railway station which lies on more than one line can be quite awkward. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:13, 5 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.