Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xinfeng railway station (Jiangxi)

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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xinfeng railway station (Jiangxi)

[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:SIRS. Info directly copied from rail site. No independent verification. Notabilty and ref tag added for new article. scope_creep^Talk 01:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep invalid rationale. A railway station is not an organisation or company and thus WP:NORG (of which WP:SIRS is part of) doesn't apply. I believe the official China Railway website is 12306.cn, the comment that there is "no independent verification" is false - neither of the sources appear to be owned by China Railway. Regarding notability of railway stations, there is longstanding community consensus that all railway stations are notable and for good reason - it saves us from wasting time arguing over these articles and it allows users to follow the line using the "adjacent stations" template at the bottom of the article. Removing this article would make navigation harder, making Wikipedia worse for our readers. NemesisAT (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added an addtional source. NemesisAT (talk) 10:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They're may be consensus on the Wikipedia that railways and railway stations are notable. Of course they are notable, but like every article on Wikipedia, they must be referenced. Simply copying information from a database generated page isn't acceptable. Where is the encyclopeadic value. Lastly, I think railway stations are organisationally based. Where does the money come from when they are repaired? They are covered by WP:NCORP. This article was sent to draft to be fixed. It wasn't. I understand it is quite hard to find information on static structures. But this is effectly a reflection of what is found on the database generated page. A notabilty tag was placed by an editor in good standing, on the new article in mainspace, which indicates there is real problem here. scope_creep^Talk 11:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added an additional citation. I'll add some details of the service pattern shortly. Nempnet (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a new list article for stations on the rail line A reevaluation of the pseudo-policy by which "railway stations are generally presumed notable" is in order. NemesisAT has been making a large number of these train station stubs, many of which would fail GNG if weighed against that metric. They are often tagged for notability or insufficient references by new page patrollers, and/or draftified, but all draftifications are promptly undone by NemesisAT without any improvements made. These are very small stubs - before this AfD, the entire text of the article was:
"Xinfeng railway station (Chinese: 信丰站) is a railway station in Xinfeng County, Ganzhou, Jiangxi, China.[1] It is an intermediate stop on the Beijing–Kowloon railway.

History

The station opened in 1996.[2]"

Considering we recently had a giant thread at ANI over an editor mass-creating poorly referenced stubs, I think it's fair to say the community does not support mass creation of poorly referenced stubs sourced mostly to databases. Take a look at the next station down the line from this one (not created by NemesisAT), which is in even worse condition: Longnan railway station (Jiangxi) is sourced only to a timetable. My two cents is that if the station articles are this barebones, they should be contained within a list article for each line, with only stations that have enough sources to justify a standalone article kept as individual articles (for instance, Beijing West railway station is clearly notable). There is not any actual policy stating all train stations are inherently notable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some service details added Nempnet (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NCORP is the wrong guideline to apply here, it is WP:NBUILDING, which says that Artificial features related to infrastructure only require GNG (and as WP:5P notes we are sort of a gazetteer, I use a very lax definition of GNG here). And this very lax interpretation can be met as follows (yes, these are poor sources, but do technically check all the boxes there being significant coverage of the station by multiple reliable independent (see WP:XINHUA) sources):

"点赞！信丰火车站客运值班人的春节坚守......_康敏". 信丰县广电新闻中心 (Xinfeng County Radio and Television News Center). Retrieved 2022-01-31 – via Sohu. | Note - this is an excerpt of a short TV news segment about the station, full segment is in embedded video.
"信丰火车站倾情服务旅客". Guangming Daily. Retrieved 2022-01-31 – via Sohu.

While I would also support Trainsandotherthings suggest of a list & re-evaluating the consensus applied at AfD to presume notability (there was an RfC on this a few years ago, got no consensus due to disagreement of what counts as a "train station", maybe a more focused definition can get consensus), I don't believe this AfD is a good place to do this, as it requires more depth (ex. which articles should be listified, if a list would be appropriate (if vast majority of articles have enough info to write an article or would be awkward to listify because they are transfer stations, then I would just make articles for all railway stations instead)). Probably best to start an RfC in WP:TRAINS then work from there. Jumpytoo Talk 18:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's literally impossible for such an infrastructure project to be built without extensive government reports on the budgets, planning, building and operating. It's highly doubtful that such a topic in the US or UK would even be considered for Afd. "No independent verification"? Of what, its existence? Oakshade (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oakshade: That is a reasonable argument. The Afd rationale isn't that its not notable, it was the fact that it doesn't verify that its notable. Where is that information, the extensive government reports. Instead, is information copied directly from railway timetables, and database generated pages. What is the point of that exactly? Does that do a disservice to Wikipedia? What is the point of duplicating content between here and the source site? scope_creep^Talk 10:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has been around for twenty years. Other websites frequently dissappear, making the information inaccesible. Many times when creating an article I've used sources from Chinese Wikipedia, and they have gone offline. NemesisAT (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have always held all railway stations to be notable. The deletion rationale is invalid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep WP:DINC -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and agree that a general purpose railway stations are notable things ruling (at least when it is a major intercity railway) would be useful.Gusfriend (talk) 07:23, 5 February 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.