Wikipedia talk:Notability: Difference between revisions

Should Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations) be amended to say that train stations are presumed to be notable? 18:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• It appears that a certain group of editors have been claiming at numerous AFDs over many years that there is consensus that all train stations are automatically notable. This came to my attention in the AFD mentioned above, where this rationale was used for a mere flag stop on disused branch line. I think that this needs to be bottomed out once and for all with a formally closed RFC. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2019#RfC India railway stations has been cited as previously establishing consensus, but that was closed procedurally as being too vague to come to a decision. SpinningSpark 18:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No train stations should not be inherently notable.Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No. "Presumed notable" should mean that, for such subjects, it is almost always the case that they are notable, via the relevant wider notability guideline (GNG in this case). I see no significant difference between this level of train stop and a bus stop or taxi stand, and no evidence that in-depth reliable independent sources would be almost always available for this level of stop. The advice in Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations) that in such cases it may be better to redirect and mention in the parent train line article would be well heeded. I would probably be willing to state that every Hochbahnhof (is there an equivalent word or phrase in English?) can be presumed notable, but at lower levels we should go case-by-case. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Hobbitschuster might be able to tell us whether there's an English term for that, but are you sure that you mean Hochbahnhof and not Hauptbahnhof? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've never studied German, so no, I'm not sure, but both words appear to be in use, and train stations labeled by either word appear to be very likely notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Hochbahnhof" is not a commonly used German term, at the very least not what one could conceivably call a proper name. "Hauptbahnhof" simply means "main station". Hobbitschuster (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No Train stations are not inherently notable, since mere existence does not necessarily engender secondary reliable sources. I assume they would fall under WP:NBUILD, though I'm not sure under which prong precisely - I'm not sure it matters too much. WP:NBUILD merely says buildings must pass WP:GNG, though cultural landmarks may be presumed to pass WP:GNG, a sensible proposal. SportingFlyer T·C 19:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I find it difficult to believe that any railway station could exist without reliable sources being written about it, although many such sources may not be readily available on the Internet. Is there anywhere in the world where railway stations can be built without going through planning processes? As a more general point, I believe that Wikipedia is failing its readers by the growing insistence that sources should be readily available online. We should aspire to give our readers more than they can get from their favourite search engine. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Existence and notability are not the same. Of course they will have been written about (in time tables for example). But they still have to have been written about in depth, and about themselves (and not for example something that happened there).Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Going through a planning process doesn't mean very much. That is true of all buildings. Even construction of my driveway went through a planning process. I agree that offline sources should be taken into account, but if a page consists of nothing more than existence and location, it would be better merged elsewhere until more information is found. SpinningSpark 20:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Phil Bridger, I believe the answer to your question, "Is there anywhere in the world where railway stations can be built without going through planning processes?" is "the entire American West during the 19th century". A water stop would have been built every 7 to 10 miles the entire length of each line, and many of these were technically tiny "stations" (until the technology improved). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess this comes down to the "What is a station?" question asked below. I wouldn't class a water stop as a station, even if passengers got off there for a few minutes to stretch their legs or answer a call of nature, but others might. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've identified the important question. (These weren't just mechanical necessities; they were destinations for goods and people. I assume that from the railway's POV, if you're stopping anyway, you might as well be getting paid for it. A dime per mile per person adds up, and you're making a small fortune on those bags of wheat the farmer dropped off.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No, for the avoidance of doubt of where I stand on this. SpinningSpark 19:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No. I do not see any reason to believe that the vast majority of train stations would meet the requirements of substantial, in-depth coverage from multiple reliable and independent sources required for notability, so presuming them to be notable is poor advice. Notability of such stations should be evaluated on a case by case basis based on actual availability of sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No per Seraphimblade and others. Small stations can always be covered in an article on the line. Johnbod (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes railway stations are hardly a hotbed of promotionalism that need independent sourcing, they have got a similar notability to large schools and readers of Wikipedia expect them to be included as part of Wikipedia's purpose as a gazeteer. It is just a waste of time to delete and then recreate articles later that obviously have off-line sources, and indepth coverage is not required on every single topic, such as endless controversy sections and argumentative prose -there are many stubs in Encyclopedia Brittanica that are useful and railway stations are a useful and popular part of Wikipedia in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No - Almost nothing should be inherently notable based just on what it is. What matters is that it's been recognized by others as worthy of note. If it's not the case that 99% of train stations have enough independent sourcing to be notable, we shouldn't consider them such. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes And I vote yes for a specific reason. If we choose to venture down the cul-de-sac of deleting railway stations that may or may not be "notable", then where do we end? Delete one railway station along a route and then we have to consider if the route is notable, and then if the network is notable, and then if the entire system is notable, and then.......well, where does it end? If the nation is considered notable, then its railway system should, and thence downwards. I guess that a fair few British railway stations are not, by themselves, notable, but within the wider context of the British railway system, of course they become important because they are chains within a wider network. Let us not become puritanical about notability. Sometimes we can ignore all rules. doktorb _words^deeds 22:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you want can be solved with a list of stations along a specific route. The Banner talk 23:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have guidelines for inclusion. There's no slippery slope argument about deleting non-notable topics. What you're saying is contrary to WP:NOTINHERITED. Every subject should be able to stand on its own against our policies and guidelines. thence downwards until which point? Each seat on a train? People at the factories that manufacture parts of the seat? To draw a line indifferent to actual sourcing is original research. If subject A is extremely notable, then very prominent positions, features, etc. of subject A are likely to be notable, but subject A's notability isn't inherited by anything else. Heads of state are notable not because heads of state should be notable, but because they are inevitably the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Universities are notable not because we decide so but because they practically always receive coverage in independent sources, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes The page Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations) is an essay and so has no special status. Insofar as it makes a difference, the page should discourage deletion nominations because they will rarely be successful as there will usually be a sensible alternative to deletion. The worst case will usually be merger of any insignificant station into the line, railway company or other more general article. Andrew D. (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Mixed, in many cases there's almost nothing to be said about a train station that couldn't be better presented in an article about the line or network it's a part of. That having been said, stations that serve as connections between two or more lines would be a difficult edge case to handle. Thus, I would consider supporting a proposal that all stations that serve as interchanges should be considered notable, and that all train lines or networks (and other mass transit) should be considered notable, which would head off the slippery slope suggested by Doktorbuk. I'm also concerned that implementing a No ruling in practice would be a WP:BIAS nightmare, as in my experience most of the new train station articles that are added these are for locations in India and Vietnam where a lack of availability of online sources and the lack of English language coverage is going to lead to the nomination of many articles where WP:NEXIST is likely true but impossible to prove. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes... BUT... the presumption of notability is not a guarantee of notability. There is no free pass. “Presumption” of notability is not the same as inherent (or automatic) notability. “Presumption” simply means that there is a strong likelihood that the required sources exist... even if they have not yet been cited. So, WP:BRFORE applies. That said, there is no guarantee. If, after a reasonably exhaustive search, no sources can be found, the topic can be deemed non-notable, and the article CAN be deleted. Blueboar (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the thing with that. On the most basic level I agree with you, but the problem with explicitly stating that something is "presumed notable" is that in practice it functions much like inherent notability when tested. Is your experience with that different? Whereas with all other editing on Wikipedia, the WP:BURDEN is on those arguing for inclusion, when something is said to be "presumed notable" first per such-and-such WP:NOTABILITYSHORTCUT, the burden is placed instead on those arguing the opposite to prove the negative. There's something to be said for this, I suppose, in that it adds a level of protection to some articles that might take some effort to properly source and so be subject to hasty deletion nominations, but I'm generally wary of giving things what amounts to mostly-but-not-quite a free pass with this kind of addition. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like the ideal way to handle this would be to institute the practice such that articles presumed to be notable per SNG should be routinely accepted at NPP, but that otherwise that shouldn't be used as an argument at AfD if nominated at some other point in time. That having been said, I agree with your impression of how this plays out in practice. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No When here is nothing more to tell than a building permit or time table info, than it clearly fails WP:GNG. Existence is not the same as notability. The Banner talk 23:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes Provided there is sufficient reliable information about its existence to write an article. I wonder if the people saying no have thought through the implications; It would mean endless debates over which stations are considered notable or not, which would doubtlessly take up lots of time and energy which could better be spent elsewhere, and would inevitably lead to lots of arbitrary and disputed outcomes. Far better to keep things simple and have a simple consistent rule on the matter. G-13114 (talk) 01:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The hard part is agreeing on what information is “sufficient”. Blueboar (talk) 01:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether anyone else has or not, but I can assure you I have, hence my statement that it should be decided case by case. That isn't "arbitrary", that's how we decide whether Wikipedia should or should not have an article about a particular subject. Though one hopes if sufficient sources to demonstrate notability don't exist, no one would create an article on the subject to begin with. But that's not always the case, so when someone doubts the notability of an article, we have a discussion to determine whether there are or are not enough reliable, independent references to support said article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice theory, but in practice in my experience deciding things "case by case" that tends to produce lots of arbitrary and illogical outcomes. G-13114 (talk) 08:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, for this essay but keep in mind it's just an essay so it's rather odd there's a RfC on it. - There is a long-standing and very wise precedent that all mainline rail stations are considered notable, whether it be the impossibility of extensive sources not exist (in-depth government agency reports at least) or the history and current role rail stations have played in localities and regions. WP is a never-ender process of creating articles of notable topics and improving existing articles. It takes a tone of time, care and energy for us all. There are tens of thousands of rail stations and if we suddenly have to be sidetracked to flesh out the retaining merits of each and every one of them then there will be a colossal diversion of our writing and improving efforts not to mention open a hornets nest of constant and never ending animosity between thousands of editors over the years in this proposed never-ending process. Highly respected Administrator DGG expressed a similar sentiment many years ago and WP has very wisely taken that position. There are common sense applications to our notability guidelines and we should leave well-enough alone and get on to having our editors focus most of their work one what readers care about, providing constantly improved articles on topics they want to learn more about. Oakshade (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So fear for a critical approach? Or just fear of a lot of work? Is there any reason to believe that suddenly every station-article is hammered and in danger? The Banner talk 09:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, generally, but I agree with Blueboar's comment that this doesn't guarantee notability. There are far, far, far less train stations than bus stops or taxi ranks, so the argument that these are comparable is wrong. It is WP:RECENTISM gone mad to suggest that, say, a station closed in 1963 requires multiple indepth online sources to prove notability. If multiple reliable independent online sources can be found about current railway stations, we can be quite certain that there were sources for a historic station (that may have existed for decades). I'm not sure a 'flag stop' would be considered a 'station', but maybe the definition of a 'railway station' needs to be nailed down. Sionk (talk) 12:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes per Sionk and Blueboar's reasoning. Just because the sources are not on-line means absolutely nothing in terms of notability. And notability is not temporary, so the fact that a station closed even decades ago doesn't change it's notability. And, finally, the fact that the presumption of notability has been the standard around here for over a decade now, applying as it has to hundreds of articles, states plainly to me that any perceived conflict with other guidelines doesn't really exist, and that the broader consensus is already established. oknazevad (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No but following on Blueboar's reasoning, if there were criteria to limit what stations to consider (such as station in major metropolitian areas to start), then this would be reasonable. We cannot presume every station is notable, but I can believe a reasonable subset of stations like those in major cities can be presumed notable. That still means the notability can be challenged later (and this is why we cannot presume every station is notable to start). --Masem (t) 16:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No: I don't believe anything is automatically notable absent reliable sources backing up the same, and I don't care for the arguments of some of the 'yes' proponents. No one requires online sources for anything, and "oh it'd be too much trouble and work to change things" begs the question "Who's forcing you to do that work?" Ravenswing 16:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speaking more generally, I see from the discussion that my basic view is not yet accepted in these discussions on inclusion --that the purpose of WP is to write articles , not to debate about writing articles. After 12 years of trying to explain this, I see that the majority of the community interested in discussing policy does not agree. The inescapable conclusion is that most people who contribute to these discussions regard WP as a place to have arguments, rather than do constructive work. Fortunately for WP, the great majority of WPedians pay very little attention to such discussions, and are here for the purpose of writing and improving articles, and if they want to discuss and argue a little, want to discuss what constitutes proper article content. The appropriate role for the others is to stay out of their way.

There are only two reason for not having an article: that there is nothing much to say, or that what there is to say is harmful to our purposes. The first is a reason for having in many cases combination articles, or lists with information about the items. (And even in the GNG, this is sensibly provided for). The other reason is thej ustification for removing articles which will inevitably be primarily promotional, or constitute gossip, or be of only temporary interest, or cannot be adequately verified. .

As applied to this particular type of subject, my view is therefore

• Yes, but sometimes they will be combination articles. WP is properly inclusive on transportation infrastructure. The comparison with bus stops and taxi stands is inappropriate. Bus stops except for central or intercity bus terminals are not buildings, but usually markings of a sidewalk, with perhaps a shelter--those that do correspond to railway stations should be considered notable. Taxi stands are not normally buildings at all. Both of these can change without significant physical construction. The nature of railway lines is otherwise. But w're talking about railway stations, not railway stops. Those that are merely shelters, usually unattended, can be considered insignificant enough that they not need to be included as articles unless they have been more substantial in the past. Those stations that are more than this, but still with insufficient information for a full article, can be in combination articles. We are too much concerned with what is worth having a full article--that is important only for those who consider the measure of their work here to be number of articles, not article quality, and for those whose real purpose is to get articles highly ranked in the search engines. DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AfD that led to this RfC was about a railway stop that basically consisted only of a flat piece of ground around the tracks with a sign (see the pre-redirection version of the article). It was not a building. In that sense it was indeed more similar to a bus stop or taxi stand than the sort of station you are thinking of. Perhaps the wording of this RfC is too ambiguous in its use of the word "station"? But that word was part of the title of the AfD article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I had this same thought. I have been to "train stations" that are a bench next to the track and a booth for buying tickets. So the idea that all of those would be automatically notable seemed bizarre. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Insufficient data for meaningful answer There are stations that are buildings, stations that are unenclosed platforms, stations only indicated by a sign marking a point where a train can optionally be stationary... XOR'easter (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No. There is no such thing as automatic or inherent notability. Although most actual train stations will turn out to be notable because of the available sourcing, presuming that all stations are automatically notable will just lead to people trying to claim this makes every disused siding, branch point, or flag stop automatically entitled to an article whether sources exist or not. Reyk _YO! 09:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No. There's a presumption that railway stations are highly likely to be notable even if the sources can't be found—they almost invariably have significant impact on the local economy and consequently it can be assumed that they receive press coverage (my lengthy thoughts on the matter are here)—but no topic is automatically notable. Even in those cases where it's reasonable to presume notability, if the sources aren't there the topic is almost certainly better covered as part of a broader article on the route or area rather than as a one-line stub; "this is notable" isn't synonymous with "this must have its own article". ‑ Iridescent 22:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No. Largely per Iridescent. That said, in my experience (as an off-line researcher as well), I think there are many rural flag stops in the United States for which even newspaper coverage can't be presumed. While some of the charismatic short lines have obsessive board-by-board coverage of the sort exploited for Wood Siding railway station, but there are stations in my trusty SPV atlas where passenger service lived and died too far from any community large enough for a newspaper. That said, I don't think a great many articles that meet that description are being created. Choess (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. The Banner (and maybe others) suggested that a list of stations along a specific route would be sufficient. This would be a complete nightmare for something like Greater Anglia (train operating company): the table would have 150 rows, with entries for 'Place', 'Local authority', 'Grid reference', 'Coordinates', 'Station code', 'Managed by', 'Number of platforms', 'Annual rail passenger usage', 'Key dates', 'Original company', 'photograph', 'Preceding station', 'Following station', 'Former services' (at a minimum) for each station. The "No"s need to pause and think about what the unintended consequences will be. Useddenim (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scaremongering. If you have so much info, you also have sources. And with sources, you can make a claim for notability. Ow, and a sortable list of stations, listed from start point to endpoint, will be sufficient. The Banner talk 00:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to rabble-rousing? Useddenim (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. A presumption of notability is not a guarantee of notability, but it is almost always the case that sufficient information is available about railway stations to pass the GNG - it's not always easily findable online (given that many stations long predate the internet and the prominence of information that is useful to travellers but not for encyclopaedia writers) but it's almost always there. There will be exceptions, but these should only be nominated for deletion when there is evidence of failure to meet the GNG not an absence of evidence that it meets it. There are cases when the encyclopaedia is best served solely by a list of stations (e.g. on an article about the line or company) but that is not the same as the station not being notable. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No. Due to this leaving the door open for exploiting the guideline. OP already mentioned this rationale being used to start page abut flag stops and other such things that surely are not included among the train stations that were considered when the notability claim was made. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Definition? What's a "station"? I'm happy to see stations as implicitly notable, but I recognise that there are many "places where trains may stop and passengers alight" which are neither notable, nor stations. In many systems, there is a distinction drawn between a "station" and a "halt", "flag stop" or whatever.

This question isn't about the notability of stations, so much as the distinction between a station and these lesser locations. That's a technical issue, not a WP policy one. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, the AFD the OP starts with is for an article on a flag stop, not anything with any real infrastructure AFAIK. So this whole RFC has been rather mired in equivocation. postdlf (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree also, but I don't think "halt" is a useful term here as usage has varied very significantly depending on time and place. I think that any discussion about what constitutes a "station" for the purposes of presumed notability would best be held at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. Thryduulf (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't know what we're talking about, then we don't have a meaningful result, but instead one that is necessarily overbroad and an invitation to start untargeted and wasteful AFDs. postdlf (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. Stations should be presumed notable providing they consisted at some point of more than a hut and a platform; however many stations should be considered for merging into larger parent articles providing they are not disruptive to that article (e.g. Too many stations). Certainly a series of near identical articles saying the same two lines of prose is pointless hoping for someone to expand it out is nearly pointless. There is some benefits namely wikidata and infobox for having an article that are lost on a merged one. One would wish some commonsense to be applied to particular situations, it can be annoy if a line consisted of 7 stations and one halt and the single halt was forced into a merge; but that can be the Wikipedia way. And if it isn't badly broke leave it alone. Tables sometimes work but they can be bad it some stations need to outgrow their row and may render poorly on mobile devices with limited screen width. What I do feel strongly about is that tram stops should be non notable by default, certainly this is an issue around Dublin.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I broadly agree with you, although "tram stops" vary from a sign by the side of the road and nothing else (e.g. some in Blackpool), all the way up to stations that are more significant than some train stations (e.g. the former Station Street stop in Nottingham). If there are 7 stations and 1 halt on the line, then consider merging the halt to a section on the article about the place it serves - if there ins't anywhere to merge it to then it probably deserves an article so the next/previous boxes work if nothing else. Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • more than a hut and a platform That's just excluded much of the modern British rail network. It's not a useful distinction. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think what might be useful is a list of features, to be presumed notable a station would need at least one of them but not necessarily all. A permanent building entirely or primarily for railway use would be one entry on the list, but not the only one. Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be even more useful to not create a set guideline and just refer back to either WP:NBUILD or WP:GNG at deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 17:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not that simple. Much of the significance of a station comes from it being part of a line. That's still the case, whether we can easily demonstrate WP:N / WP:GNG and certainly WP:NBUILD for each and every station on it. Teesside Airport is an example of a station that's certainly marginal, but it's on what's still the world's first passenger railway and our coverage of that line would be lacking if it were removed.

I do wonder if WP:N generally ought to take more account of the completeness of other, broader topics, not merely notability in isolation. After all, who needs thulium? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After all, who needs thulium? Tom Lehrer. Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Andy, we've often seen that a mechanical application of notability guidelines threaten to poke arbitrary holes in subjects that merit comprehensive coverage. It's a useful rough proxy for identifying content we want, but not an end in itself. And often misapplied as a bludgeon to WP:SPLITS, where we see AFD nominators confused as to what the relevant topic is, versus just what element of that topic happens to be most convenient to format as a separate page. postdlf (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • Teesside Airport also unarguably passes WP:GNG. Most passenger stations will. But if there's nothing we can say about a station apart from the fact it exists, we should redirect it to the line or a list of stations on the line, assuming the line also meets WP:GNG. What this SNG really would do is change the burden in AfDs from the users wanting to keep un-notable random train station to showing sourcing has been met to make the users wanting to delete the un-notable random train station show the presumption of notability doesn't exist. SportingFlyer T·C 20:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • if there's nothing we can say about a station The amount we can say about a topic has never stopped AfD before. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, it should matter at AFD, because "the amount we can say about a topic" is an indication of WP:SIGCOV. If you can't say anything, then the subject fails GNG. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • And yet plenty of articles with extensive coverage get deleted at AfD. Look at the differences between UK popular fiction and the US. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • SIGCOV is only one of many requirements, so meeting SIGCOV is Necessary but not sufficient for getting through AFD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No, and I would like to see this added in clear and direct terms. It is neither inherently notable (nothing is) nor presumed notable (a status that we accord to subjects that we're certain we'll be able to find sources about, e.g., US presidents). I suggest a few sentences along these lines: "Because there is so much variation in what 'a train station' means and has meant through history – ranging from an empty field where people could signal the train to request a stop, to a water stop for steam trains, to an unenclosed platform on a suburban commuter line, to major facilities on long-distance rail – it is impossible to say that all train stations are notable. Instead, each current and former train station must be evaluated on its own merits. Small and short-lived train stations should generally be combined with larger articles (e.g., the nearest town and/or a list of all stops on that rail line), as should any train station for which relatively little is known." WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No Not categorically or automatically wp:notable North8000 (talk) 00:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak yes per the first pillar: Our encyclopedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is, partly, a gazetteer, and there is merit in us having comprehensive information on railway stations in line with that purpose. For that reason stations should be presumed to be suitable for inclusion (i.e., presumed to be notable). "Presumed" does not mean every station is notable, and arguments about notability not being inherited from the line, or there being no inherent notability miss that crucial word; even things that meet the GNG may not actually be notable, we just presume that things which meet it are. I don't see this addition as being out of line with those policies. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a directory and we shouldn't include every station on a line simply because it exists: there should be clear evidence that a given station is actually important. Perhaps something similar to WP:NACADEMICS where researchers with particularly high citation metrics in relation to the rest of their field are presumed notable under that subject specific guideline? Stations that meet some threshold of ridership relative to other stations? So a post in a field where a train may optionally stop wouldn't qualify since it likely doesn't have high ridership, but most regular stops likely would. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 03:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No (Summoned by bot) – there's nothing special here that requires extra verbiage about notability; existing standards are sufficient. Oddly, it seems like some of the "no" and "yes" votes cite the same reasoning, stated with reversed polarity: "No, unless it meets notability"; "Yes, provided it meets notability". Is everybody really just revealing their Inclusionist/Exclusionist bias, here? Did I say I vote "no", yet? Mathglot (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, As I predicted, this discussion has shown up the Pandora's box which would be opened by changing the existing guidelines, given the wildly differing interpretations of what different people would consider 'notable', which is why I argued against opening it. Of course to have a meaningful answer, we would first have to define what is meant by a station, presumably any reasonable definition of a station would imply some form of permanent infrastructure such as platforms, buildings or shelters, which would rule out most 'pole in a field next to tracks' type entities. G-13114 (talk) 08:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal to change an essay is not going to change anything. WP:CONSENSUS has and long considered mainline stations notable and retainable regardless of what this essay was lacking. Even a "no" "outcome" to this RfC will just signify the status quo.Oakshade (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I request that the closer formally assess what effect this discussion has on the consensus of train station notability. SpinningSpark 16:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That’s impossible as a decade and a half of consensus on mainline stations and how editors apply common sense approaches to notability isn’t at all affected by a limited RfC discussion about wording of an essay on an obscure project talk page. They can try to reach a “conclusion” but it doesn’t change anything.

I certainly hope that the closer does reach a conclusion, otherwise it will be necessary to start yet another AFD. To claim that this discussion is "limited" is quite perverse given that it is on a major policy page, has been trailed at VP, and has a high level of participation. Conversely, AFDs often have a participation of just two or three. Frankly, it is being disruptive to declare in advance that you are going to ignore the result of this RFC and carry on regardless. It is not true, in any case, that train stations are invariably kept at AFD. When there is little available information they can be closed as merge or redirect. The one that triggered this discussion was so closed. So was Woolloongabba railway station, Belvidere station, Manchester Avenue station, and Yeouinaru Station. But you already know this, you are just choosing to ignore it. SpinningSpark 09:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever "conclusion" a closer on an RfC about an obscure essay performs is meaningless. And yes, a single RfC in a limited discussion in which the participation is minuscule compared to the 15 years of consensus in AfDs does zero change of that true consensus. This reminds me of the RfC discussion on airline destinations on an obscure talk page like this one in which that limited discussion "concluded" there should be no airline destination articles. After an AfD that had much more participation and subsequent DRV, editors quickly rendered that RfC "conclusion" as meaningless as that was a WP:CONLIMITED discussion with no true gauge of consensus. Same thing is happening here except this page is even more unknown and the discussion is about an essay. Those AfD examples were just mere tram stops, not actual main stations, something even you acknowleged in the last AfD. Oakshade (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, don't be misrepresenting what I said. None of those examples are tram stops. SpinningSpark 15:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's just grouchy that consensus isn't going their way. I suspect the "reeeeee RfCs are meaningless" tone would be rather more gloaty if everyone was saying all flag stops and sidings are automatically notable. Reyk _YO! 15:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Yes please. The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchester Avenue station AfD was just about a tram stop. The 1st Yeouinaru station AfD, which was just about a tram stop, was overturned and in fact retained after the second Afd - strange you chose that as an "example" of a deleted article when it in fact was kept. The Woolloongabba railway station AfD and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belvidere station AfDs were deleted for WP:CRYSTAL reasons as they were just proposed stations. Oakshade (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Depends I'd suggest that stations on nationally-important commuter rail (Amtrak, British Rail, etc.) and prominent rapid transit (NYC Subway, Chicago "L", Paris Metro, etc.) lines/systems are/ought to be presumed notable, but not for less prominent lines of systems such as the Rochester, NY subway. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  You are aware that British Rail hasn't existed for over 20 years? ‑ Iridescent 19:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Technically that has literally nothing to do with Notability, per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Newimpartial (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  But it might have quite a lot to do with whether it's good example of a nationally important commuter rail. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No Nothing in inherently notable, and far too many people assert a presumption of notability in certain categories means an article is immune from even discussion for deletion. Absurd to think that Wikipedia needs to include any place a train stops in its own article. Reywas92^Talk 07:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Train Stations should be presumed notable, but the definition of what a station is needs to be tightened. At the least, a train station must have a platform, a station building, a manned ticket booth, facilities, and a a timetable board. Flag stops and other stops are not notable. Darx9url (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Would this new definition include metro/subway stops? Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Would this proposed definition include non-passenger facilities with this qualities (except presumably the ticket booth)? What about a train station that existed briefly at some point? (Perhaps the rail line failed, or the station was replaced with one in a slightly different location.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong question. Per the explicit votes of XOR'easter and Andy Dingley, the important question is not "Are all X notable?" it is "What are some minimal criteria that an example of X should satisfy for it to be presumably notable?" This argument is also made/question is also raised (but not as an explicit vote) by David Eppstein, Phil Bridger, Sionk, Masem, DGG, PraiseVivec, postdif, Thryduulf, Djm-leighpark, WhatamIdoing, Wugapodes, G-13114, and Darx9url. The suggestion of an NPROF-like list of criteria is excellent; the details can be haggled over outside any RfC. --JBL (talk) 12:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes we mustn't give Wikipedia a beeching axe to Wikipedia's open source ad free railway coverage. 2A01:4C8:41D:80F0:96E3:B69F:DA6C:E498 (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No There is no such thing as inherent notability, and the current language "It may be considered that if enough attributable information is available about a station on a main system to verify that it exists, it generally is appropriate for the subject to have its own article" should be rewritten to reflect that.

Sure, it's "just an essay", but it's presented as advice (not simply an opinion piece) and it's silly to maintain bad advice in Wiki space especially if folks are using it to support !votes. –dlthewave ☎ 19:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• My original contribution of 31 Mar 2019 within this page, which questioned the notability of rarely used flag stops, has since been archived. My concern related to the stops already listed within the main article for the Jasper–Prince Rupert train that all possess their own stub pages. Based on passenger volumes and sheer remoteness, I could not imagine that any train has stopped at the majority of these trackside poles in years. The fact that these pages remain as stubs after a decade of existence suggests their insignificance. The meagre contents of these specific stubs varies from misleading to largely erroneous. Making corrections seems pointless, since it would merely duplicate the railway section of the respective Wikipedia pages covering these hamlets/ghost towns. If interested parties were successful in having these particular stubs deleted, would someone less familiar with the locations just reinstate them? DMBanks1 (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]