Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jinlong station (Shenzhen Metro)


 * 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. The consensus here seems to be that the Chinese sources allow this article to meet WP:GNG. Liz Read! Talk! 02:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Jinlong station (Shenzhen Metro)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Have attempted tagging and redirecting this article, hoping that it would be improved. Currently, there is not a single in-depth source. Fails GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 02:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Subway stations typically do have their own Wikipedia articles, so I would expect that Shenzhen Metro's stations would have them too -- and most of them do (see Template:Shenzhen Metro stations). As this station opened less than two months ago, in a period when foreign travel to China has been limited, I would not expect that English-language sources about this station would be readily available yet. If the decision here is not to keep the article, I recommend a redirect instead to Line 14 (Shenzhen Metro) in lieu of deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Greetings, I would have preferred the redirect as well, but the article creator objected. They also object to providing enough sourcing to show that it passes notability.  Onel 5969  TT me 11:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect - Agree with Metropolition about the redirect. It does not seem like there is enough independent information about this station specifically, as opposed to Line 14 more broadly, to warrant a standalone article. Info about the exits is more appropriate for a travel guide. I think this is a temporary redirect until enough information can be found on Jinlong station itself rather than the general opening of the line. Kazamzam (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep There are 18 stations on the line. Merging all of these would make the line article unweildy and only merging some would make an inconsistent experience for the reader. I think it is best that the article is kept. Garuda3 (talk) 11:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. Shellwood (talk) 11:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Line 14 (Shenzhen Metro) until such time that sources can be identified to show a GNG pass. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect While most individual stations do have articles, merely stating their existance and listing where each exit is is not adequate until more substantive sources and content is available. Reywas92Talk 14:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - I found a few sources in Chinese: . Mucube (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Virtually all other major cities have an article for each of their subway/metro stations. It's certainly new but I think it's worth keeping. Sgubaldo (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets GNG:
 * - This is also the second source provided by Mucube
 * Jumpytoo Talk 06:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * - This is also the second source provided by Mucube
 * Jumpytoo Talk 06:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources given above, among others. Could you please hold off on nominating any other Shenzhen Metro Like 14 stations for deletion? It doesn't look like any of these deletion nominations will succeed, and they're becoming a waste of the community's time. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Be happy to, if someone would bring them into compliance with GNG. I've tried draftifying them, redirecting them, and finally tagging them.  Only bringing them to AfD seems to prompt folks to want to provide the sourcing necessary to show they pass GNG.  I agree, it is a waste of time, pity that someone interested in the subject doesn't take the time to source them properly.  There are probably about another 15 or so in the queue with the same issues.  I've been waiting to see if anyone improves them, or if it will be necessary to nominate them as well.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been refusing to review these (I almost exclusively review transport-related articles in NPP) because I'm sick of people attacking me for daring to enforce GNG. I don't speak Chinese, but when I try to find sources the best I can I get attacked for the crime of not being Chinese literate. I won't approve things in the queue that fail GNG, no matter how much certain editors think otherwise. The editor mass-creating these has no interest in working collaboratively or adding anything approaching sufficient sourcing. Blame them for wasting community time, not those of us who work at NPP and hold back the floodgates of crap, promo, and copyvio that show up in the queue every day. Of course, those who've never done a single NPP review are all too eager to criticize those who do. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CONTN, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." These subjects are notable, even if the sources haven't been added to the article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's easy for someone who doesn't participate at NPP at all to say. When crappy articles like this appear in the queue, we have to figure out if they're notable or not. That may sound easy to you, but most of us at enwiki are not fluent in Chinese. Just the same, we try our best, while the usual crowd at AfD is only too happy to let them sit in the queue with nearly zero sourcing until one of us tries to do something about it. But by all means, please keep educating us on how notability works. A better use of your time would be to demonstrate that sources exist (Template:Sources exist) for the remaining stubs created by this author so we can mark them as reviewed and AfD is unnecessary. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think all Shenzhen metro stations are likely to be notable and can be marked as reviewed (assuming no other major issues are present). I will try to go through and add Template:Sources exist. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Done – I've gone through the Shenzhen metro station articles listed at that page and checked that multiple independent sources exist for each. Please let me know if I've missed any. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 05:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * But you have not added any sources to any of the articles. That's what needs to occur.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly, even just dropping a few links to sources on the talk pages would be sufficient, as far as I'm concerned. It would be better if they were in the article directly, but so long as a GNG pass is demonstrated, and the article doesn't violate any other policy, I would accept it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources found. --Rschen7754 01:38, 15 December 2022 (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.