Kerakat railway station – Withdrawn. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Kerakat railway station (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Hi folks. I wanted to clarify this deletion discussion, where both User:Mjroots and User:Balablitz stated that all railway stations are notable. This contradicts WP:NTRAINSTATION which states that train stations do not have any inherent notability. Can this be checked? I am an AfC reviewer and regularly decline articles of railway stations for not meeting GNG. Qcne (talk) 10:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] Read this as 2024, didn't realise this was a ten year old XfD! Qcne (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] That was nearly 10 years ago, we've moved on since then. Railway stations should generally be notable enough to sustain articles. That said, WP:GNG still needs to be met via WP:V by WP:RSs. Mjroots (talk) 11:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] Endorse nearly 10 year old discussion where all comments were to keep the article. --Enos733 (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] Speedy endorse. The arguments made in the AfD do not matter as is always the case with closes due to nominator withdrawal when no one else recommends anything other than keeping. If all participants disagree with the nominator, but the nominator is right and everyone else is wrong, and the nominator yields to those wrong arguments and withdraws, two things can happen: (1) a new or "revived" deletion rationale appears (someone who could otherwise close as "withdrawn" believes that the nominator was correct after all and !votes delete, for example, leading to the AfD continuing normally); (2) the discussion is closed as "withdrawn". When the latter happens, it's always an appropriate thing to happen, as such a close is just a recording of an objective fact, and it is immune to challenge. Here, the nominator withdrew and the AfD was procedurally correctly speedily kept, consistent with WP:SKCRIT#1.3, and the outcome of the process has been appropriately recorded as "withdrawn". It is impossible to alter this outcome in any way now, and there is no prospect of success in a deletion review.—Alalch E. 15:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] @User:Qcne. You should withdraw here and start an AfD if you think the article should be deleted, because it is categorically impossible for this deletion review to produce anything. —Alalch E. 15:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] Oh my god that's embarassing @Alalch E. @Enos733 @Mjroots. I read the date as 30 March 2024, thinking it had been closed this year, which is obviously why I was wondering why train stations were notable in contradiction to the policy. Sorry. Qcne (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] For future reference, a DRV nomination such as this one, when the outcome was a procedurally valid "(speedy kept as) withdrawn", does not adhere to any of the five points in WP:DRVPURPOSE: (1) it can not be discussed here whether the closer of the deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly, because he did not interpret consensus, (2) a speedy deletion did not occur, (3) there was no deletion regarding which "significant new information" could have come to light, (4) the page was not deleted for it to potentially be wrongly deleted, (5) there were no procedural errors. So age doesn't matter. Whether this AfD happened ten years ago or today does not even matter.—Alalch E. 15:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] @Qcne: - nothing to be sorry for, and there is nothing stopping a second AfD discussion, should any editor want to start one. Mjroots (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Hi folks. I wanted to clarify this deletion discussion, where both User:Mjroots and User:Balablitz stated that all railway stations are notable. This contradicts WP:NTRAINSTATION which states that train stations do not have any inherent notability. Can this be checked? I am an AfC reviewer and regularly decline articles of railway stations for not meeting GNG. Qcne (talk) 10:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read this as 2024, didn't realise this was a ten year old XfD! Qcne (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was nearly 10 years ago, we've moved on since then. Railway stations should generally be notable enough to sustain articles. That said, WP:GNG still needs to be met via WP:V by WP:RSs. Mjroots (talk) 11:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse nearly 10 year old discussion where all comments were to keep the article. --Enos733 (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy endorse. The arguments made in the AfD do not matter as is always the case with closes due to nominator withdrawal when no one else recommends anything other than keeping. If all participants disagree with the nominator, but the nominator is right and everyone else is wrong, and the nominator yields to those wrong arguments and withdraws, two things can happen: (1) a new or "revived" deletion rationale appears (someone who could otherwise close as "withdrawn" believes that the nominator was correct after all and !votes delete, for example, leading to the AfD continuing normally); (2) the discussion is closed as "withdrawn". When the latter happens, it's always an appropriate thing to happen, as such a close is just a recording of an objective fact, and it is immune to challenge. Here, the nominator withdrew and the AfD was procedurally correctly speedily kept, consistent with WP:SKCRIT#1.3, and the outcome of the process has been appropriately recorded as "withdrawn". It is impossible to alter this outcome in any way now, and there is no prospect of success in a deletion review.—Alalch E. 15:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Qcne. You should withdraw here and start an AfD if you think the article should be deleted, because it is categorically impossible for this deletion review to produce anything. —Alalch E. 15:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my god that's embarassing @Alalch E. @Enos733 @Mjroots. I read the date as 30 March 2024, thinking it had been closed this year, which is obviously why I was wondering why train stations were notable in contradiction to the policy.

Sorry. Qcne (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, a DRV nomination such as this one, when the outcome was a procedurally valid "(speedy kept as) withdrawn", does not adhere to any of the five points in WP:DRVPURPOSE: (1) it can not be discussed here whether the closer of the deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly, because he did not interpret consensus, (2) a speedy deletion did not occur, (3) there was no deletion regarding which "significant new information" could have come to light, (4) the page was not deleted for it to potentially be wrongly deleted, (5) there were no procedural errors. So age doesn't matter. Whether this AfD happened ten years ago or today does not even matter.—Alalch E. 15:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne: - nothing to be sorry for, and there is nothing stopping a second AfD discussion, should any editor want to start one. Mjroots (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.