User:Cesdeva/sandbox7

Light blue: #bad4ff
Peach: #ffdaba
Light-grey: #dbdbdb
Mid-grey: #bcbcbc
Dark-grey: #4444
Beige: #eae8d0
Mid-green: #094900

This is the user sandbox of Cesdeva. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. Create or edit your own sandbox here.

Cesdeva OUT
Rhadow OUT

The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption.

RfC:Notability of railway stations (policy proposal)

This page in a nutshell: A policy proposal for that sets out notability standards for railway stations if there's enough referenced information to make it encyclopedic. Otherwise, include the station in a parent article.

Should existing railroad stations be presumed to be notable?

This whole effort may be a Sisyphean task. Here is a discussion that disregards policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shankarpalli railway station.

There are two approaches to this effort: deductive and inductive. The deductive arguments are WP:MILL, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:EXIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and No free pass at AfD. For those editors who think inductively, we need enough examples that we are not accused of cherry-picking. The current presumption of notability has given a free pass to some truly atrocious articles. I have found a bunch whose editors have sought to establish notability by adding three or four references that mention the station, but are routine schedule announcements or other occurrences not discussed at all in the article. I suspect that many of the stubs were developed programmatically. There is some text that recurs, even with illogical results. To wit, "The station has 1 platforms. The platforms are not well sheltered." If asked, I can supply several hundred substandard stubs.

The schools debate provides us some indication of how the discussion will go. We might as well acknowledge the previous debate without calling it a precedent-setting analogue. A school, like a train station, serves a community. It includes a physical structure, staff, history, and process. In India, however, a ground-level station without shelter is not noteworthy; the same article can be written about a thousand rail stops. Having a complete library of station articles may appeal to enthusiasts, but is not useful to a reader.

Arguments against will come in two varieties: (1) "There is already consensus that railway stations have inherent notability ... and we like the status quo." (2) "There are plenty of sources, we just haven't found them yet." There are plenty of policy arguments against the first. As to the second, we should point out that while there seems to be plenty of energy to create new, unreferenced articles, there is precious little enthusiasm to fix the old unreferenced ones. Then we trot out the statistics.

There might be another way to skin the cat. Railroad enthusiasts will argue that stations have inherent notability (WP:DEFACTO). The logical result of that position is the conclusion that consensus trumps policy. So here's what we argue: Inherent notability trumps policy in a number of areas including railway stations and Sri Lankan cricket players. Given that's the case, the proposal might be that we scrap WP:GNG altogether. That would generate some interest!

Rhadowwww. Consensus makes policy. The status quo on railways exists because of WP:IAR, so scrapping WP:GNG is a non-starter, and would be disregarded immediately. Respectfully i suggest you calm down and stop trying to move mountains lol. If you need somewhere to focus your energy, here is a list of articles that need creating. Cesdeva ^(talk) 02:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

So, Cesdeva, I take you believe there is no likely way forward to improve the collection of Indian railway station articles. The status quo is likely to prevail, leaving us with 2790 mainspace articles covering the 8,500 stations in India. Of those, 2,000 are still in a stub condition, and of those, several hundred are are brief recitations of the Indiarailinfo database. I'm not sure that the reader is any better off as a result of this situation.

Thanks for your help, though. Rhadow (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Brief nomination statement: This policy proposal seeks to standardise the inclusion criteria for railway station articles on English Wikipedia.

Proposers sig Rhadow (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended proposal content: A draft for this policy exists /here. This proposed policy was partially inspired by a section within Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations). The text in that essay has been substantially unchanged for a decade.

There are many thousands of railway and subway stations. The question is sometimes raised as to whether one of these places is notable enough for a standalone article. Wikipedia:Notability says: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

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. For proposed or planned stations, historic railways stations that only existed briefly, or stations on metro, light rail, tram, people mover, or heritage railway lines, if insufficient source material is available for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the station in an article about the line or system that the station is on.

In the same way that every school is not notable, deserving of a mainspace article, railway stations vary in their notability. This policy establishes that railway stations are not inherently notable, as places are. It interprets the WP:N policy where railway stations are concerned, taking into account the peculiarities of the data sources for such articles.

The authors recognize that railway networks are a source of national pride and have sought to minimize the systemic and cultural bias against articles in various countries. Having said that, the authors observe that India has 8,500 railways stations, with 2790 articles in the mainspace. Of those, 2,000 are in stub status, providing little verifiable information to a WP reader. This proposal seeks to make it easier for an editor or reviewer to determine notability.

Co proposer sig

Policy page ideas:

Notability criteria

WP:GNG applies to railway stations unless the building is architecturally significant. An example is Aravankadu railway station.
Trains passing the station each day do not confer notability. References describing train schedules are not supportive.
WP:ORG A station that is an administrative location for the railroad is likely notable.
A railway station is notable if it is architectural significant:
- WP:NBUILD Kashmiri architecture is, for example. Metro Station Komsomolskaya, Moscow is.
- WP:NBUILD Full-service stations of innovative design are. Ground-level platforms without shelter are likely not.

In accord with WP:GNG and WP:... subject websites with database information are considered primary sources and are acceptable for non-controversial characteristics, after notability is established.

Advice on existing articles that fail criteria

What about stations that fail the notability criteria?

Different countries have different means of organizing railroads. In general, the hierarchy is operator > division> zone > station. A station that fails to support its own article would be described in the zone (assuming the zone was notable) or in the division (assuming it was notable).

Content guidelines ^{a separate essay}

What information is important to a railway station article?

This brief list can be a guide for new article patrol:

The article has two references that are not from an official timetable site. A newspaper, for example.
The lede is well written,
The town or nearest town is wikilinked.
Indic script is removed in accord with WP:INDICSCRIPT.
The article has coordinates. A map is a nice-to-have.
Timetables are removed. The trains that pass do not confer notability.

Editors are cautioned against adding fluff to an article including, for example:

Charts of railway distances
extended description of nearby attractions and industries when an article already exists.

Major line stations presumed notable?

^end