Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longhua Station

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. However, I would recommend starting a discussion at Talk:MTR on whether or not to merge these station articles to MTR or to a list article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Longhua Station

[edit]
Longhua Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After two contested dbs, I have come to this, the article does not provide encyclopedic value to wikipedia as its context and content is limited, the articles subject's notability is also mininal, not to say right ahead null Eduemoni↑talk↓ 19:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Transportation; metro stations have consensus notability. The subject of the article is a station along Longhua Line, Shenzhen Metro and is no less encyclopedic than any other member of Category:Shenzhen Metro stations. Admittedly needs to be sourced and expanded, but this is essentially a WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. --Kinu t/c 19:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If it was a case of WP:ILIKE or WP:IDONTLIKE, I'd be writing it on my nomination argument which I didn't, but even though most of railway and subway lines survive AfD, station does not, there are many thousand of stations throughout the world, the case is, is this station relevant enough to be featured within Wikipedia, in Brazil, more specifically Salvador, there are several Railway/Subway, so if we have consensus notability I should create an article for every single one of them. The consensus exist, but there is a specific guideline about it, is it notable enough to have its own article? Why can't it be a part of the Metro's article? If there is enough external reliable source to provide context and content, which I steadily thought it would miss, it must be kept, otherwise it has to be deleted. I'm convinced that we don't have enough WP:ATT information about this station to write a comprehensive article about this station. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 23:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't see any reason to argue against [Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Transportation]]. Some articles will always be short. Its like inhabited places. There's just a general consensus that places inhabited by people which are officially recognized as being towns, villages, etc are notable enough to keep, but some of them are so unremarkable that only a few paragraphs will ever be written about them. go with the flow. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with Eduemoni, that stubs should be deleted but after reading Wikipedia:Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations)#Stations, I have to defer to WP:GNG which requires that reliable sources discusss the subject in some detail. In general I'm for subway station articles, but I'd put the minimum notability requirements a little bit above what this article demonstrates, but the article can be expanded. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A good stub is a deleted stub, why maintain something that cannot grow beyond stub level? Eduemoni↑talk↓ 03:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A subway/metro station has been agreed to be notable. If you don't like stubs feel free to add some more information. See Shin-Hōsono_Station as an example of a medium size station page. In the time spent to nominate it and argue for deletion, you could maybe have expanded it to this size. Francis Bond (talk) 04:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep stations on notable metro systems are inherently notable, so yes we should ultimately have an article about every station on the network. There is no deadline though, so it is not incumbent on any one editor, including yourself, to create them. Thryduulf (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A fallacy is being propagated here, while Railway and Subway articles are inherently notable, stations are not as per Wikipedia:Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations)#Stations. The article is not going to meet what is required by this guideline as I mentioned before, so it fits better being written into its main article. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 05:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Metro station in city of over 12 million. Per long-standing convention, such stations are considered inherently notable. It's absolutely impossible for such a major project to be planned, built and completed without extensive government proposals, surveys and reports. The contesting of the dbs were warranted.--Oakshade (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; others have pretty much said it all. Precedent, if not written policy, has established notability for metro stations. Oakshade puts it well. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no trouble with the creation of the article, but it should contain more information than one line that states thet "the station is a station". C'mon now, if you support this article expand it in some way. You've talked the talk - now do the walk - or delete for incompetence. Secondarywaltz (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What is this precedent? I have difficulty believing that a sufficiently large number of sane wikipedians all agreed that stations are all notable by definition, regardless of how few sources are available. Arguing that previous stations have survived AfD is just a circular fallacy. This particular station falls far short of the GNG; delete it. bobrayner (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The GNG isn't the only determinant on whether we should have an article about something. WP:FIVE states we incorporate elements of a Gazetteer, which this article seems to satisfy.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a problem? Do all articles need to be lengthy? --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Something that can't be lengthy, does not have enough background/notability, and is also something which cannot be well sourced, thus failing WP:N and WP:V. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 16:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is policy that articles don't have to be perfect - WP:IMPERFECT - and that Wikipedia is always a work in progress. In fact if a Korean language editor takes the time to do some research, like with any city metro station, there's plenty that can be written about this station. What's the history? What's the architecture like? Are there any transit connections? What's the ridership? Any notable events take place at the station? See Hollywood/Vine (Los Angeles Metro station) as just one of hundreds of examples of how a metro station can be "lengthy". --Oakshade (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Longhua_Station&oldid=1138033258"