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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lamotte-Beuvron station[edit]

Lamotte-Beuvron station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:SIGCOV. Unclear if there is any importance to this particular station; appears to be non-notable. Paradoxsociety 01:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and France. Paradoxsociety 01:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Very longstanding consensus is that all railway stations are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @Necrothesp - I saw WP:STATION prior to nominating, but it was less than clear that there's any "longstanding consensus" regarding "all railway stations" being notable. Is there another page indicating this strong consensus? If this is indeed the case can we make an effort to update the essay? I'd be happy to join you in discussing further on the essay's talk page. Paradoxsociety 23:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not written down anywhere. A number of editors have decided that this is the way it is and they usually overpower everyone else so that these articles are always kept. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks @Trainsandotherthings for the explanation. I'm just getting active again with AfD after being away for a while so I appreciate you letting me know about this. Paradoxsociety 03:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It appears that Trainsandotherthings does not like the consensus, but that does not make it any less of a consensus as any look at previous AfDs will show. Maybe they'd like to show us instances where railway stations have been deleted at AfD? Because consensus on notability is largely made at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It appears that Necrothesp does not like consistent application of our policies and guidelines. Maybe you would like to explain why we should ignore WP:STATION, WP:GNG, and even WP:NOPAGE, the latter of which states that "What sourcing is available now? Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub." as well as "Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page" and most crucially "Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page." But Necrothesp is not open to considering these alternatives in favor of simply keeping large numbers of permastubs like this one. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:CONSENSUS is a policy. WP:STATION is an essay. Consensus has very clearly been to keep railway station articles. So, I ask you again, please show us instances where railway stations have been deleted at AfD. Because plenty of them have been nominated. What, you can't? That's consensus! And Wikipedia works on consensus, not on unbending application of non-existent "rules". As I have said many times, if this was the case then we wouldn't have AfD discussions; we'd just mandate admins to delete any article they thought wasn't appropriate for Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And I'm sure you vehemently defended the consensus of the 2019 RfC that determined there explicitly was not a consensus that all stations are notable? And anyway, Consensus can change. JoelleJay (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, yes, the classic "consensus can change" argument always trotted out by editors who want it to change and think that by saying that they think it should change it has changed. Show me the evidence that it has changed then. I believe that's the third time I've asked! Consensus can indeed change, but it clearly has not changed in this instance. Your opinion does not equal consensus. Consensus equals consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Then why was the actual explicit consensus at that RfC ignored? JoelleJay (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You clearly did not read the closer's statement. The issue was that the definition of a railway station was not clearly defined. A little odd, but there you have it. But this clearly is a railway station by any definition of the term. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added my thoughts to the essay, namely that we should at least try to find some historical record of the particular station building and use that in the article, rather that simply having a sub article about the "shed by the tracks at xyz location". Many hundred of these stations are built to a standard design so it's hard (but not impossible) to find some description of one the particular station "styles" and use it for our purposes. I've been going to Gallica at the BNF and looking in old books or newspapers to find some mention of the station that can be used to beef up the article. Otherwise I usually won't bother with the article. Oaktree b (talk) 03:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or Merge to Orléans–Montauban railway. Not notable enough for a standalone page. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Weak keep for essentially the same reasons as JoellyJay. Thank you to Jumpytoo for actually finding sources, something the usual editors at these AfDs never seem to do. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Highly likely to be offline and non-English sources for a French railway station opened in 1847. Regardless, I strongly feel keeping station articles is beneficial to Wikipedia's readers as it allows them to be easily navigated using the "adjacent stations" templates as well as allowing them to show up in the "Nearby" feature for mobile users. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, there is just no need to be strict about railway station articles. NemesisAT (talk) 10:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:But there must be sources!. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, per TAOT. Can someone point to an offline source that is extremely likely to give SIGCOV to this station? Can anyone even offer a P&G-based argument to keep? Project-level essays obviously don't count toward this. JoelleJay (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are a few sources that discuss the station to meet WP:GNG:

• Humbert, Georges Charles (1893). Traité des chemins de fer d'intérêt local: chemins de fer à voie étroite, tramways, chemins de fer à crémaillère et funiculaires (in French). Baudry et cie. - From Google Translate, seems to provide a description of the station layout.
• "LONG FORMAT. Et si Lamotte-Beuvron accueillait les JO 2024 ?" (in French). 2018-04-18. - The "Aménagement de la gare de Lamotte" section talks about how the railway station affects a local horse racing complex.
• "Lamotte-Beuvron : les usagers de la gare paieront deux fois…". Magcentre (in French). Retrieved 2022-06-06. - A very short article, but describes controversy for an hidden fee increase for tickets from the station.

Jumpytoo Talk 23:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Gallica, I found [1], a report by the engineer who built the line to the city/municipal council about this particular section. It's rather dry but can be used to beef up the article here. Oaktree b (talk) 03:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Railway stations have always been deemed worthy enough to have an article. I've translated a few of these from French; I mean, they give a description, location and trains served. 150 yr old plus buildings, most aren't recognized or having the French equivalent of a National Register of Historic Places listing. We either keep all of them or delete all of them, they're all pretty much the same as this one. Not sure an AFD debate is enough, this should be brought to a policy board so we can establish something as a rule. Soft keep would be my vote, otherwise we'd just be deleting hundreds/thousands of articles here... Oaktree b (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sy station [2] was my most recent translation. It's a "shed beside a track where trains have stopped for over 100 yrs", to put it in a nutshell. You'll get the scattered mention of some event in a local newspaper of something happening at the station or a train hitting a person, it's all pretty routine. I'd prefer if we kept them and I enjoy translating them, but that's my two cents. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, significant coverage in reliable sources. See for instance this news article: the station sees 190,000 passengers a year. Markussep ^Talk 11:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've updated the essay on station notability with a few things I've noticed translating these articles [3]; at the very least, we have historical descriptions of this particular station as described above and more recent media coverage of ridership levels and what have you. I'm thinking we at least have context for the station, rather than a bare-bones article simply giving a geographical location and number of tracks it has. Oaktree b (talk) 03:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Jumpytoo and Oaktree b. I definitely agree a discussion should be had somewhere more visible on the way we approach these articles. JoelleJay (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.