Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qishuyan 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. Geschichte (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qishuyan railway 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)

Fails WP:GNG there are no claims of notability in the article. The other language article https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%88%9A%E5%A2%85%E5%A0%B0%E7%AB%99 has several references, but the all seem to be minor mentions and/or primary sources. The other language articel is is longer, but still no claims that would meet WP:GNG. Prod was removed with " a century-old railway station is not an uncontroversial deletion candidate" Jeepday (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, general feeling is that railway stations are always notable. NemesisAT (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I realize I'm in a minority of one here, but I'm surprised that there is a general feeling is that railway stations are always notable. When was this agreed? Is there a general statement to that effect? Anyway, it's not a feeling that I share. There must be many thousands of railway stations in the world: is every single one notable? Having said that I should add that it appears that every station in England is notable enough for a Wikiparticle, as I couldn't find one that doesn't have one: even a station as obscure as Brimley Halt has one. Athel cb (talk) 09:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very much an inclusionist across all subject matters, so of course, I do think each railway station deserves an article. Railway stations also have the advantage of usually being longstanding, permanent structures and thus basic information is unlikely to become outdated or wrong, making them perfect for inclusion in Wikipedia. There are loads of defunct station articles in England (and the rest of the UK, and the US) that wouldn't pass WP:GNG but I still feel they should be kept (and would vote keep in any deletion discussion) for historical reference. I believe this situation is better than having some with their own article, some without, and constant discussion on which ones deserve an article and which ones don't.

That being said, I believe this station article does pass WP:GNG per Jumpytoo's comment below, and thus I stand by my keep vote. NemesisAT (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was agreed by consensus at many AfDs over many years. Hence WP:RAILOUTCOMES. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Firstly, it is general consensus that large heavy-rail stations are kept at AfD, because they are at least regionally notable and nearly always have significant coverage of them over their lifespan. Anyways, there are several sources that cover this station which meet WP:GNG:

Wuxi shi zhi = Wuxi shizhi. Shen Zhuang, 庄申., Wuxi shi di fang zhi bian zuan wei yüanhui, 无锡市地方志编纂委员会. (Di 1 ban ed.). Nanjing: Jiangsu ren min chu ban she. 1995. p. 672. ISBN 7-214-01577-3. OCLC 36057171.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
Zhongguo tie lu zhan ming ci dian. Benxiang Sun, 孙本祥. (Di 1 ban ed.). Beijing shi: Zhongguo tie dao chu ban she. 2003. ISBN 7-113-03941-3. OCLC 53211800.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
"关于戚墅堰站客发量的分析和建议". 科技风. 2013年第9期.
"车站百家姓(三)". 铁道知识. 2008年第3期.
"常州市内主要的火车站之一——戚墅堰站_站房". www.sohu.com. Retrieved 2021-07-09.

I also assume that there are additional offline sources that were not digitized, so this article clearly meets WP:GNG.

Jumpytoo Talk 18:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't see how something you assume can support the clearly that follows. Athel cb (talk) 09:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the "so" was inaccurate, but don't the sources already given make things clear? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I was unclear, my GNG assertion was intended to include the sources that I also provided above. Jumpytoo Talk 19:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Elements of nomination and notifcations of the nom. were not particularly normal which worried me yesterday. Would have jumped in with a keep !vote but easier to simply agree with NemesisAT & Jumpytoo. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jumpytoo, NemsisAT and Djm-leighpark. Plenty of evidence for notability. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAILOUTCOMES Ratnahastin(t.c) 04:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All railway stations are notable per longstanding consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and WP:RAILOUTCOMES, article can definitely be expanded. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 03:21, 16 July 2021 (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.