Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Changxing 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 snow keep--Ymblanter (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changxing 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)

None notable railway station, we are not a railway guide book. Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, otherwise we would have to delete the majority of railway station articles we have on WP. Nightfury 14:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure otherstuff is a valid argument.Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, how do you determine what a "notable" railway station is? I've added a little bit more information to the article.NemesisAT (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable in its own right, not just existing.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So if it is notable, why have you brought it forward to AfD? Nightfury 15:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was responding to the question "how do you determine what a "notable" railway station is?" its has to pass wp:n.Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you said the subject was notable... Nightfury 15:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes "how do you determine what a "notable" railway station? It is notable in its own right", I did not say it was notable, I said in order to be notable it has to be notable in its own right.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you mean by that? The article now has four sources so I would think it would be notable. NemesisAT (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" Of the sources only 2 seems to be more then one or two lines. The rest I am njot sure are RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of the others is a primary source, and the other is Chinese media (and so possibly state controlled). I am not sure these are enough to pass GNG.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly if you want any coverage of Chinese railways at all, you're going to need to allow some sate-controlled Chinese media as, as far as I'm aware, no other sources are covering Chinese rail in anywhere near enough depth. It would be a real shame to lose this information. NemesisAT (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This railway serves a county of over half a million people, which makes it notable. The problem is that with the mass deletion of several Chinese sources from Wikipedia, a lot of articles like this are being stripped of sourcing. I've been arguing at WP:RSN#Mass_removal_of_content_on_China-related_articles that this might lead to mass deletion of China-related content from Wikipedia - this article is just a tiny example of that. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very useful + notable Devokewater (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just collecting some significant coverage from domestic news sources (make of them what you will):
- Article from Qianjiang Evening News
- Article from Zhejiang Online [zh] / Changxing News Network
- Article from Zhejiang Online / Changxing News Network
- Article from Zhejiang Online / Changxing News Network
- Article from Zhejiang Online / Changxing News Network
— MarkH₂₁^talk 16:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC); added more 20:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's a soft consensus that we keep large heavy-rail station articles, and even disregarding that there is coverage of the station on Chinese media, as per above. There's also some more sources on Baidu Baike (like Chinese Wikipedia). Jumpytoo Talk 19:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is enough coverage of a non-controversial subject in local Chinese media to pass WP:GNG and there is a consensus that most train stations are included, as per WP:RAILOUTCOMES, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNG clearly demonstrated above (whether the sources would satisfy OP's absurd political requirements is not relevant), and per the aforementioned WP:RAILOUTCOMES. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Railway stations are generally considered notable and the nomination hasn't explained why this one wouldn't be. Other stuff does of course exist, and applying a standard to a Chinese railway station that would not be applied to a station in Texas or Aargau is a textbook example of systemic bias. Mackensen (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have, there are not enough sources to pass gng, they are all either trivial mentions or primary sources..Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason there aren't enough sources is because some editors are arguing that essentially all Chinese sources are unreliable. If only non-Chinese media is admissible, we'll end up with articles about the central railway stations of Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou and a few dozen other cities that Westerners frequent, but the countless Chinese cities like Changxing (with merely 620,000 inhabitants), which would be inherently notable were they to exist in any Western country, will drop out of Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article could be merges with the city article and lose nothing. We are not a station directory, we are an encyclopedia.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus in the past has been that such merges are undesirable. Mackensen (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per WP:RAILOUTCOMES. --SalmanZ (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mackensen et al. WP:RAILOUTCOMES exists to establish basic ground rules for large, high-speed train stations, as this is: "Existing heavy rail stations on a main system (i.e. not a heritage railway) are generally kept at AfD." This is about as unchanging a consensus as I've seen; it's not a "soft consensus". Deleting this because "all Chinese media are unreliable" is classic systematic bias and is thus untenable. If this were something controversial (say, prisoners in Tibet or a terrorist attack, heaven forbid), I'd understand, or if Jimbo declared trains stations to be run of the mill, but the coverage is substantial and uncontroversial as it gets. Bearian (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. We invariably keep railway stations. Clear consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is the norm for active railway stations, schools, airports, etc. It does not meet the traditional GNG bar though, kind of confused why people are arguing it does. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2020 (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.