Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fornos - Sabor stop

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 redirect‎ to Sabor line. Daniel (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fornos - Sabor stop

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

There are three levels of train stations in Portugal: stations, halts, and stops. The stations and halts – not withstanding the name – are more elaborate. "Fornos - Sabor stop" was a station of least importance in this hierarchy, located in the rural space, with hardly any builtup. In fact, it's our only article on a train stop in Portugal. Not sure why we carry it. If it was named correctly, I would recommend the ATD of redirecting to the Sabor line. Do not confuse Sabor with Sodor ;-) gidonb (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For those who are confused about the reason to delete, adding that this is the WP:GNG and WP:NRAIL. gidonb (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Portugal. gidonb (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There doesn't appear to be any reason being put forward for deleting this article. Garuda3 (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The arguments provided are weak and honestly futile, given that all Sabor line stations are situated in rural spaces (except for Pocinho), the mere fact that it is the first stop with an article isn’t a valid reason for its exclusion. Wikipedia strives to be a comprehensive and inclusive repository of knowledge. Having an article on the "Fornos - Sabor stop" contributes to the diversity of topics covered on Wikipedia.

Not every station/halt/stop article needs to focus on one that is located on a large or urban-centric location; rural spaces and smaller stops also hold cultural and historical significance for local folk. Instead of trying to delete the article, consider the potential for expansion. More information, images, or historical context can be added to the article, deleting as I see it, won’t bring any benefit whatsoever. V.B.Speranza (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above keep arguments are WP:HARDWORK and WP:EVERYTHING or just do not present any useful argument to support their vote. It also should be pointed out that deletion is not loss, any deleted article can be restored to it's former glory at any time, if new information comes to light. Also, it is disingenuous to suggest that we should consider expanding the article instead of deleting it. Everyone who reads the policy knows this a prerequisite to AFD. So, the argument you make there is redundant. James.folsom (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Sabor line. Clearly fails any quantifiable notability criterion, and the retention arguments are "you didn't give a deletion reason" which is patently false, and a pointless rehashing of extreme-inclusionist arguments that have been rejected by the community at large. "More information, images, or historical context can be added to the article" appears to be a fiction crafted in an attempt to prevent redirecting or deletion of this non-notable article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion that the article "clearly fails any quantifiable notability criterion" may overlook the inherent challenges of capturing certain topics' significance solely through quantifiable measures. Some subjects hold cultural or local importance that might not align with conventional notability criteria but still contribute meaningfully to the broader narrative.

Regarding the claim that the retention arguments are based on a false premise of "you didn't give a deletion reason", you must recognize that discussions within the community can be complex, simply the arguments provided by the person that wants this article deleted were weak if not just ridiculous. Deleting the article outright could result in the loss of potentially valuable content, as the Sabor Line might be reopened in the near future. V.B.Speranza (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spare me the word salad. You haven't refuted anything I said, only made appeals to emotion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look, lets accept the fact that the requestor could have been more clear. But, let's also accept that anybody that has read the notablility guidelines for train stations would know very well the reason why this was nominated. Now, the only valid claim I see in the above keep argument is about cultural importance. Are you claiming this is a culturally important subject? Because, if you are you could build a much stronger argument by simply telling us about this cultural value so that we can weigh it. Thus far, all the arguments for keep that have been provided are provided without verifiable facts. I would add that I've never seen any subject that was of important cultural value, that didn't also have easily verifiable sources as well. Maybe you could give us an example of these "inherent challenges of capturing certain topics' significance solely through quantifiable measures" so that we may be more careful in the future.James.folsom (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sabor line. I cannot find any evidence of independent notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“It stands as a modest example of Português Suave architecture, where the initial stop was dismantled to make way for the present structure, a transformation that took place in the 1940s or 1950s”

The only one still standing, Sanhoane and Mós were similar, but they are long demolished V.B.Speranza (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a piece of information; it is not notability. Notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which are not present here. Please read WP:NOTABILITY before you continue to bludgeon the discussion. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sabor line. Notability is not based an whether a Wikipedia editor thinks a railway halt is important, but based on whether reliable secondary sources think it's worth something. Sionk (talk) 12:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Sabor line. No one has been able to find sufficient material to demonstrate nobility. The keep voters keep insisting on notability, but will not provide any evidence of this.James.folsom (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2024 (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.