Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pan'an South railway 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 clear consensus against outright deletion and no consensus as to whether to merge or keep. The merge issue does not need this AFD discussion to be extended any further.

Note that some countries, especially anglophone countries or western countries, the UK comes to mind, do have individual articles on all railway stations, and metro stations, in that country, and there may be issues of bias if other countries are not given that treatment. However, coverage in this article is indeed very basic. As such the issue is not settled.

But for purposes of whether or not to delete this article, that issue is settled against deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pan'an South railway station[edit]

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

Pan'an South railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merged to rail line during new page patrol and was reverted. No indication of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. No content other than it's existence. IMO would be an inevitable permastub limited to that. I moved the content and image to the line article which IMO is a good, appropriate and stable place for it and was reverted. North8000 (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Not enough coverage to justify a standalone article per WP:NOPAGE. And before the inevitable "WE MUST KEEP THIS BECAUSE OF ADJACENT STATIONS!!!!" consider the adjacent station Xianju South railway station. That article has managed an impressive zero views over the past 30 days. Nobody is reading these. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are multiple references that focus on the subject, it meets WP:GNG. Number of views is irrelevant. NemesisAT (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Mere existence doesn't warrant a standalone article. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 22:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't presented any reason for deleting the article. NemesisAT (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A merge is not deletion. Surely you understand that. This permastub would convey all the same information as part of a larger article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A merge is not deletion. The article is no longer visible, so it is effectively deletion. I've already gone over in various AfDs with multiple reasons why I feel separate station articles are beneficial to the project. There's no such thing as a permastub - for example, an event could happen at any station in the future warranting expansion to the relevant station article. NemesisAT (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a deletion - the page could still survive as a redirect. I don't think this article should be outright deleted. The content would still be there, but it would be part of a larger article, not as a standalone permastub. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 01:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG:
  • "磐安县融媒体中心：火车开进磐安 梦想照亮前方". m.thepaper.cn. Retrieved 2022-06-27. - Article about the station opening, has significant information about the station which could be added to the article
  • "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 of the station after 1 year, shows WP:SUSTAINED coverage
  • 中国蓝新闻. "金台铁路开通运营在即 磐安南站进入冲刺扫尾阶段_哔哩哔哩" (in Simplified Chinese). Retrieved 2022-06-27 – via www.bilibili.com. - A local news report about the construction progress of the station
Jumpytoo Talk 07:02, 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:
  1. 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
  2. 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) 13:49, 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) 14:29, 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) 16:07, 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) 10:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xingke Avenue station Here's consensus to merge a similar train station stub. Your tired, worn out, and mindless "Keep because I say so" argument is wrong, disruptive, and you would be best off dropping it. You're an experienced editor, you should understand that there is no policy that supports your argument. The consensus is determined right here and right now, not at some hypothetical mysterious past event you can never actually identify. Either you can start an RfC to try and support your claims, or you can drop them. You are not the AfD police, and the only reason many previous AfDs for train station stubs have been keeps is because you and your fellow travelers show up religiously at every such AfD to spam "Keep" without being able to point to ANY POLICY to support you, while most do not attract much attention from the broader community. You have repeatedly twisted the concept of consensus into a stick to beat other editors over the head with at AfD. "Keep because all train stations are notable" you cry. We ask you, where is this established? And you can provide nothing except "these other AfDs ended in keep, therefore this one must too, regardless of the differences between those articles and the one here and now." And even if we were to accept your claim that all train stations are inherently notable, that would not mean they all deserve standalone pages. See WP:NOPAGE. It's interesting that your userpage contains a giant rant about notability policies, yet you appear to have little understanding of them. You say there "we don't have rules that must be inflexibly obeyed" yet that is EXACTLY what you do every time a train station appears at AfD. You inflexibly insist that every single article must be kept regardless of the merits or lack thereof. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am an experienced editor. And I understand very well how Wikipedia works. So try to avoid teaching me how to suck eggs with your grand eleven months of editing experience. I say that station articles are notable because I believe they are and, I repeat, that consensus supports me. You may not like it, but it is the case. And be very careful before you accuse other editors of posting spam and being disruptive. A valid opinion is not spam and not disruptive. These attempts to shut down editors who don't agree with you are getting worrying. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp, 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) 13:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically the sentence: "Avoid weak or illogical arguments, such as "Notability is only an optional guideline" or "We always keep these articles"." Interesting how you're doing exactly what the very page you point to says not to do. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A valid opinion is not disruptive, and as far as I'm aware no one is shutting you down for having a different opinion than them. It doesn't take over a decade of editing experience (or 11 months, even) to recognize that many of your arguments are unsound and weak. You can !vote keep at railway stations all you want, but if persistently citing RAILOUTCOMES the consensus that supports you without providing where it was established (aside from station AfDs) isn't disruptive, I'm not sure what is. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 02:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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) 19:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do love it when editors try to poo-poo consensus because it conflicts with their own beliefs on what should be kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having grown sick of your constant berating and attacking anyone who rightfully points out the inherent lack of any real argument you're making, I started an RfC on the question. The overwhelming consensus there already is that your argument is full of shit, to put it mildly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It truly is laughable that you claim I'm "berating and attacking" you! Utterly hilarious, given your growing unpleasantness. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep without prejudice to a merge discussion, as not even the nominator has advanced any rationale for deletion. If a bold merge is reverted, the correct next step is to discuss a merge, not AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge, per nom; a standalone article is not justified here, but since the station is verifiable it is appropriate to merge the content.
On using AfD to propose a merge; it is unorthodox, and perhaps not ideal given the concerns about the overloading of the AfD process, but since the merge process is in an even worse state I don't see it as a problem. BilledMammal (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per nom. Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTGUIDE, & WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Atsme 💬 📧 17:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources have been provided above that show it passes GNG. Specifically which parts of NOTGUIDE and NOTDIRECTORY does this fall foul of? NemesisAT (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (edit conflict) May any editors provide any input on the sources I provided above, which both show WP:GNG is met and show that this article can be expanded out of a stub? I also note the next station on this line was also nominated for deletion (likely prompted by a comment in this very AfD!), I presented similar sources, and the consensus was to keep. Is there a reason the sources would be sufficient for that station, but not this one? Jumpytoo Talk 17:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Long-standing consensus as demonstrated at User:Necrothesp/List of AfD discussions for railway stations is that (a) railway stations and services as a concept are notable and covering them is not WP:UNDUE and (b) they're better covered at standalone articles instead of in lists. Calling other editors "full of shit", while perhaps satisfying in the moment, doesn't change that. Mackensen (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm of no fixed opinion; if I was creating the article from scratch, I'd try to find better sources than simply those proving it exists. If there are none, it can be deleted. Is there any indication of architectural details/historical context at the station? If yes, it could be kept. Oaktree b (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfies GNG per refs. Djflem (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The sources presented contain insufficient significant coverage of the station from which to build an article so this fails GNG (see also WHYN); the substantive coverage in the sources is mostly of the line. As it stands, this stub is little more than a directory entry. If nothing substantial can be found, the merge is the best option. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have expanded the article with the sources provided above and one additional source which describes the planned development around the station:
Jumpytoo Talk 19:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThe article and sourcing has been beefed up. IMO still no GNG sources but IMO it upgrades it into an edge case. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So that's "best covered as a section in a higher level article", "has moved up to an edge case regarding GNG" and "hell no" to the non-existent claimed "consensus". North8000 (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article has been significantly expanded by Jumpytoo since all of the merge votes above. NemesisAT (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's a mainline rail station. It's impossible for such projects to be completed without extensive government reports and studies. Sources further demonstrating GNG have been added. Time to move on to more productive editing. Oakshade (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Reaffirming my merge !vote; while the article has been expanded, I still don't believe a standalone article is justifiable here, or more beneficial to the reader than a larger article giving the reader a broader picture than this stub does. I also note that I can't read Chinese to be able to determine whether GNG is met. BilledMammal (talk) 05:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You can use Google Translate, it works well enough for evaluating if a source provides significant coverage. The first, second, and fourth sources I provided in this AfD provide significant coverage across several different topics regarding the station across 4 years, which is more than enough to show GNG is met and enough information is available to create a Start-class article or better. Merging the article to the line article would either cause the loss of encyclopedic information or cause WP:DUE issues (think about if every station on the line has the same amount of content as this one). Jumpytoo Talk 07:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – 333-blue at 06:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the rationale of Necrothesp. I know we can have a new WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at any time but as evidenced by this AfD, that time is not yet. Lightburst (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Necrothesp claimed a consensus that simply does not exist, as comprehensively demonstrated above and at WT:N. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, he definitely didn't. Consensus very clearly exists at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, consensus at AFD does exist. The problem is, it just isn't what you claim it to be (or even close). Your claim that "all railway stations are notable" is demonstrably false – RAILOUTCOMES ("generally kept" is plainly not equivalent to "all are notable") and your own list of AFDs confirm this, as does the 2019 RFC. The current RFC also reaffirms this. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you need to reread the list of AfDs. The vast majority of actual railway stations have been kept at AfD. Consensus does not have to be 100% to be consensus. And also reread the conclusion of the 2019 RfC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't claim "vast majority"; you claimed "all". Perhaps you should learn the difference between the two before misrepresenting consensus again? wjematherplease leave a message... 12:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the RFC: "No consensus exists... to presume all train station articles... are notable..." (a sentiment repeated more than once in the closing statement, e.g. "I do not see a consensus to presume all train stations are notable"). How anyone could possibly read this as consensus for all stations being notable, I simply do not know. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you quite understand the definition of consensus. Never mind. I'll let somebody else explain. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, what's clear is that you (an admin!) either do not understand the difference between verifiability and notability, or worse, are deliberately conflating them in order to gaslight the community. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you keep being disruptive by deliberately ignoring the consensus clearly reached at the RfC, I will be seeking sanctions against you. Please don't let it get to that point. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge WP:RUNOFTHEMILL station, does not warrant a standalone article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    RUNOFTHEMILL is an essay, not policy or guideline, and certainly no basis for deleting an article. NemesisAT (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No one has proposed deleting the article? BilledMammal (talk) 10:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG per sources provided by Jumpytoo. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Per the other merge votes which set out good reasons. The "all stations are notable" argument is a ghost zombie consensus - does not exist yet refuses to die. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only that, it has actively been refuted by a well-attended RfC; see Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of train stations which found an active consensus against train stations being inherently notable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pan%27an_South_railway_station&oldid=1099961504"