Deletion of Patharkandi railway station

Comment: There is no such thing as a non-notable rail station.  WP wisely decided a long time ago that rail stations articles are to be kept as indicated in  and therefore we don't have to flesh out and discuss the merit of tens of thousands that exist and editors' time can be better spent on creating articles and improving existing ones, not to mention avoiding animosity between editors
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:OUTCOMES)

Comment: Usual practice is to keep all train station articles. Certainly is the practice for the New York City Subway. Another example of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:GEOBIAS)

Comment: ping|Oakshade|Thryduulf|Necrothesp}} Per , I thoroughly checked  before nominating. Despite what Oakshade asserted above, under |Rail transport, it says that Subway and railway ''lines'' (not stations) often survive AfD and to see the essay at Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations). That latter page then says that for ''stations'' you should either follow  or you should keep the article if enough verifiable information is available for a comprehensive article (which is not the case here). That page goes on to say "If some source material is available, but is insufficient for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the subject under the article for its parent locality or parent company. If no source material, or only directory-type information (location, function, name, address) can be provided, the subject may not merit mention at all." Since only directory-type information was available, I thought I was erring on the side of inclusionism by proposing a redirect. If the decade-long consensus is that every little concrete slab next to a set of train tracks deserves an article, it should really be listed in  and/or 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:OUTCOMES||WP:RAILOUTCOMES||WP:GNG||WP:OUTCOMES||WP:GEOFEAT)