Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jinyun 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 no consensus between keep and merge and as no one is arguing for delete, that does not require a relist. Discussion on where this content should live can continue editorially. Star  Mississippi  02:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Jinyun railway station

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

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) 16:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom and per WP:NOPAGE. This is getting ridiculous honestly. If NemesisAT is going to frustrate all attempts to deal with their creations of permastubs, ANI may be the only recourse left. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please note that threats to take other editors to ANI when they have done nothing wrong just because you disagree with what they are doing are not in the spirit of Wikipedia and could be seen as attempting to force your own viewpoint on other editors and throw your weight around. Please do not do it! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * and could be seen as attempting to force your own viewpoint on other editors and throw your weight around I see the hypocrisy of you saying this when you are frequently guilty of it clearly is lost on you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Listify to List of stations on the Jinhua–Wenzhou railway as WP:ATD. All the coverage I found is for Jinyun West station, I did not find anything substantial for Jinyun station. I ask for listify because I want to look at filling in data for the rest of the stations, which are currently redlinks. Jumpytoo Talk 07:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Longstanding consensus is that all railway stations are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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) 13:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * My post just said that that is not accurate, and gave many specific. You are just repeating your previous assertion. North8000 (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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) 09:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Necrothesp, please read the first section from the essay that you have been quoting from and trying to mis-use Articles for deletion 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) 13:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep I feel the present sourcing is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Railway stations are an uncontroversial topic that doesn't need extensive sourcing. I feel a consistent approach of keeping all station articles is beneficial to Wikipedia's readers as it aids navigation with categories, Special:Nearby, and the adjacent stations templates. I see little benefit in potentially thousands of deletion discussions to determine the notability of every individual station. NemesisAT (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. For those editors who refuse to accept that a consensus exists that railway stations are notable, here it is very clearly illustrated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 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) 19:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep This survey clearly represents Wikipedia-wide consensus developed over an extended period of time to keep such articles. Wikipedia:Arbitration succintky states that "where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus". This is re-iterated at CONLEVEL: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." Djflem (talk) 07:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * From the close of Articles for deletion/Xingke Avenue station: "The argument that all train stations are automatically notable has no basis in an actual guideline, as has been pointed out, which makes the "keep" arguments presented here rather weak." And more clearly, an RfC was held on this question which resulted in a finding of no consensus that all train stations are notable, meaning that it is really at these previous AfDs that a local consensus is overriding a global one. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The global consensus through editing seen at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation demonstrates that the community has consistently chosen to keep articles of this type (main line stations). Incidentally, comments of that type from a closer do not create consensus, policy, guidline and are irrelevant and best ignored as useless Supervote. Djflem (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice try totally ignoring the 2019 RfC that found no consensus for your argument. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am adressing the results of community choices shown at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation and global consensus established by broad participation of editors. Djflem (talk) 06:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep without prejudice to a merge discussion as not even the nominator has advanced any rationale for deleting. If your bold merge is reverted, then the correct course of action is either to let it go or to start a discussion about the merge, not to head to AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 21:40, 3 July 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.