Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hebeng Passenger Railway


 * 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 to keep, but references from Chinese WP should be copied into this article. Rename should be discussed.  DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hebeng Passenger Railway

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Lacking much references to support article; also "expected to be put into service by 2013" means that it violates WP:CRYSTALBALL. :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  08:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  — :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  08:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All content is translated from zh:合蚌客运专线, referance is inhertance from Chinese version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TRA&HSR&BUS&MRT&LRT (talk • contribs) 09:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and probably rename - Railway lines are generally accepted as notable and the Chinese WP article appears to have Chinese references with significant coverage. I don't know about this "Hebeng" name though.  I can't find any English character spelling resembling that outside of WP references.  The name translates to "mussels" which matches the translated name in the references. There is no WP:CRYSTALBALL violation if future projects are confirmed by reliable sources.  In this case, it's already under construction. --Oakshade (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)  Addition - Keep the second two articles. (the nom added the second two articles after I typed the above).  For the same reasons, except neutral on re-naming.--Oakshade (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of WP:RAILROAD, but there's currently little to nothing in the article(s) to verify their existence. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  07:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:N requires the existence of coverage of a subject, not that the sources be already cited in an article. --Oakshade (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to WP:V and WP:MILL. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  18:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * An article topic would "fail" WP:V only if it's impossible to verify. Not only is it possible to verify the existence of this railway, but multiple sources linked in this AfD verify it and demonstrate notability to boot.  WP:MILL is an opinion essay.  Besides, a high speed rail line connecting major cities is not by any definition a "run of the mill" topic. --Oakshade (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Hebeng" would appear to be an abbreviation of "Hefei-Bengbu". Phil Bridger (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like you're correct. --Oakshade (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even has coverage in English-language sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep railways are generally notable, and there are book sources that can be found on them. Dew Kane (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.