Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xianju South railway 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. Rough consensus that meets WP:GNG, beyond any comments on prior consensus that "all train stations are notable" as that is disputed. Not ruling out a potential merge in the future, which can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xianju South railway station

[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)

No indication of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. No content other than it's existence. IMO an inevitable permastub limited to that. Better merged to a line or sentence or two in the rail line article. North8000 (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple references that focus on the subject. Despite what the nom states, I think it meets WP:GNG. Unclear how a merge would be better. NemesisAT (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the benefit of those who are not Chinese speakers, can you elaborate on how this meets GNG? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG:

"仙居火车站尚未开通已成"网红"-浙江新闻-浙江在线". zjnews.zjol.com.cn. Retrieved 2022-06-27. - Describes the citizen reaction of the station before it opened
"仙居南站是金台铁路唯一的曲线客运站". zj.zjol.com.cn. Retrieved 2022-06-27. - Describes the station in detail
"金台鐵路通車運營一周年：山海之路串聯幸福生活". zj.people.com.cn. Retrieved 2022-06-27. - Describes impact the station has after 1 year, shows WP:SUSTAINED coverage

Jumpytoo Talk 07:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Longstanding consensus is that all railway stations are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment People keep talking about an imaginary "consensus that all rail stations are notable" which does not exist. First, the place such a thing that came out of an actual consensus process is at WP GNG and the SNG's. They aren't mentioned under any SNG's leaving it to GNG says that they have to meet GNG souring. Some folks point to WP:RAILOUTCOMES which:

Is not even a guideline, it's an observation of common outcomes, and per other posts, it appears that even that observation may be wrong
Conflicts with their blanket statement, stating a few types which are usually kept after which it says:"Other stations are usually kept or merged and redirected to an article about the line or system they are on.""

North8000 (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All WP:RAILOUTCOMES does is illustrate the consensus, which most assuredly exists and has been established over many AfDs. Nobody is claiming it is a guideline, but WP:CONSENSUS is a policy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My post just said that that is not accurate, and gave many specific. You are just repeating your previous assertion. North8000 (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Existing heavy rail stations on a main system (i.e. not a heritage railway) are generally kept at AfD. Is this is a heritage railway? No it isn't. And yes, it is accurate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the first section from the essay that you have been quoting from and trying to mis-use Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Common outcomes#Citing this page in AfD and you will see that what you have been trying to do with it here conflicts with it in many ways and is invalid.North8000 (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For those editors who refuse to accept that a consensus exists that railway stations are notable, here it is very clearly illustrated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change. Your argument is invalid. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree that there is a consensus? Can you demonstrate where it has changed? Djflem (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xingke Avenue station and the 2019 RfC which explicitly held there is no consensus that all train stations are inherently notable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One AfD does not a consensus make and the comment by the closer is irrelevant and overreach (they should have joined the conversation to take a position). So what is the change in consensus from the RfC from 2019 to which you refer? Djflem (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read the RfC I linked? It said there is NO CONSENSUS that train stations are inherently notable. NO. CONSENSUS. It is your comments here that are irrelevant and overreach. You are claiming a consensus that explicitly has been found not to exist. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you mentioned consensus can change (through discussion or editing). Since the 2019 RfC one can see consensus is to not delete articles of this type.Djflem (talk) 10:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, consensus is a particular Wikipedia decision-making process. You trying to "interpret" something out of a list of articles (including ones that that are there due to "no consensus to delete") isn't it. North8000 (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The survey clearly represents Wikipedia-wide consensus developed over an extended period of time to keep such articles. Wikipedia:Arbitration succintky states that "where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus". This is re-iterated at Wikipedia:CONLEVEL: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale."

Please see my post which you were ostensibly responding to where you completely ignored the points made in it, which refute your most recent post. North8000 (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, nothing to do with that post. Pointing out the fact Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation/archive demonstrates a community wide consensus through editing to keep articles of this type (handily condensed in survey presented). Djflem (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Trainsandotherthings has started an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of train stations. NemesisAT (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jumpytoo. Djflem (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a second debate going on here which is the false "all train stations are notable" claim. That false claim aside, I think that some folks have established that this is at least an edge case under GNG, and note that a result could be determined noting that it was based on (edge case) GNG review of provided sources. You could count me as a keep only if something like that was described in the close. North8000 (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep without prejudice to a merge discussion. The nomination presents no rationale for deletion but rather is actively seeking a merge. Nobody else has provided any reason why this should be deleted rather than merged. Thryduulf (talk) 21:35, 3 July 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.