Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Verpillière station

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

La Verpillière station[edit]

[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)

Was tagged for two weeks for notability, without improvement, after which it was sent to draft for improvement. Then it was objected to being sent to draft, using an WP:OSE argument. As per DRAFTOBJECT, was returned to mainspace, and now we are here. Not enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG or WP:VERIFY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for some reason the English article wasn't linked to all other language wikis, which I've just done. The FR wiki article has sourcing from two book chapters that describe stations built about this time period; I think it's GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oaktree. Easily passes the GNG; the French article shows obvious scope for expansion. Not sure what the hurry is here. Mackensen (talk) 03:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Easily meets GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to see the reasons behind this seemingly inconsistent approach in removing this article yet not touching countless others with the same level of "in-depth" (or the lack thereof) sourcing - I offered, in our initial discussion, just a small list of articles on nearby rail stations just in the department of Isère and nearby (such as Grenoble station, Albertville station, dozens others in that area only), which happily exist on Wikipedia for years (over a decade even in some cases) without being threatened. I actually modelled my article on one of those. Tagged as stubs, fair enough, but not as candidates for deletion. Either there is a consistent approach, or it's all arbitrary, which does not help. DanX (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And as I already explained to you, that's an WP:OSE argument. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:DanX is correct in their comments. The guideline(?) or tirade(?) or snide(?) dismissal of stating "other stuff exists is not a valid argument" is itself not valid. It was maybe expedient in Wikipedia's infancy in the 1950s or whenever, but by now Wikipedia is well-enough developed that it is useful and fair to point to issues of consistency (although i don't really fault Onel5969 for citing it, because it is weirdly still accepted. Methinks an RFC or at least an essay is needed towards shutting that down. E.g. it should be an accepted result of an AFD to determine "do not delete at least for now, because there are more extreme cases which should be addressed first. In the future it should be less murky where the line should be drawn." --Doncram (talk,contribs) 02:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST and the above. gidonb (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the French article demonstrates that this meets GNG. Also, WP:NEXIST is an official guideline. --Rs chen 7754 05:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rschen7754. starship .paint (exalt) 07:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 02:08, 5 February 2023 (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.