Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neiwei 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 keep. Star  Mississippi  02:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Neiwei railway station

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

Does not have significant coverage; per WP:STATION, should not have a standalone article. Redirect to Western Trunk line. Aj shul &lt; talk &gt; 19:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  Aj shul &lt; talk &gt;  19:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Generally, all operating stations are kept. See:
 * Articles for deletion/Kahi railway station
 * Articles for deletion/Changxing railway station
 * Articles for deletion/Xinfeng railway station (Jiangxi)
 * Articles for deletion/Llandinam railway station
 * I think deleting this article would make Wikipedia worse as it would break the sequence in the "adjacent stations" template making navigation more confusing, and would also mean we lose the location data so the station would no longer appear in the "nearby articles" feature on mobile. NemesisAT (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Has significant coverage:
 * - Contains basic information & history regarding the station
 * - Details the impact the station had on the community
 * I also agree with what Nemesis said, WP:RAILOUTCOMES notes that heavy-rail stations usually get kept here, and I would expect something with more thought put into it than just Does not have significant coverage for a station AfD. This is also the main railway line in Taiwan, it would be unthinkable to attempt to AfD a railway station article on the East Coast Main Line for example. Jumpytoo Talk 21:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC) edited 00:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Western Trunk line, fails GNG. For all the editors who religiously point to RAILOUTCOMES every time a train station microstub is nominated for deletion, please remember that RAILOUTCOMES is not a policy, while GNG very much is. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How does deleting a railway station article improve Wikipedia? Letting railway stations pass if there is verifiable information on them is an easy rule that avoid continued discussion over whether the tens of thousands of station articles we have are notable, and provides consistency across the project. NemesisAT (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It improves Wikipedia by removing crap like this article from mainspace. From NSTATION: "If enough attributable information exists about a station or railway line to write a full and comprehensive article about it, then it may be appropriate for the subject to have its own article. For proposed or planned stations, historic railways stations that only existed briefly, or stations on metro, light rail, tram, people mover, or heritage railway lines, if insufficient source material is available for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the station in an article about the line or system that the station is on." Even you have to admit the article at present is not even close to comprehensive. Therefore at this time it does not merit a separate article. You know what provides consistency across the project? Enforcing GNG, and not massively bending the rules for things like train stations for no good reason. How about you try citing a policy for once, instead of providing reflexive excuses to retain things clearly unfit for mainspace? As I said before, RAILOUTCOMES is not a policy or even a guideline. From the editnotice at the top of this page: "valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements". If you wish to persuade people, try expanding the article so that it meets GNG and NSTATION. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As useful as it is, GNG is anything but consistent as it depends on the interpretations of reliable, independant, and significant coverage. I am not providing excuses, I have explained why I think keeping all railway station articles improves Wikipedia. Per WP:IAR, this is valid.
 * That being said, the station does pass GNG with the Yahoo News article and the 臺灣公論報 article. NemesisAT (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Further coverage:
 * (appears to be a blog, but has some fab photos and demonstrates how stations aren't all the same, this one contains some nice looking mosaics)
 * NemesisAT (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * NemesisAT (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Consensus has long been that all railway stations are notable and WP:CONSENSUS most certainly is a policy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The station is part of Western Trunk line, which is the main railway line of Taiwan, thus follows WP:RAILOUTCOMES. It is written inside these multiple (more than 1) secondary sources, thus follows WP:GNG. It has its own Wikidata page, Commons category page and it is written in other 3 Wikipedia languages. Chongkian (talk) 04:12, 14 March 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.