Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ninh Hòa 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Ninh Hòa station

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

Non-notable railway station - fails notability as given in WP:STATION Whiteguru (talk) 06:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Vietnam. Whiteguru (talk) 06:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:RAILOUTCOMES. I think it is best for Wikipedia's readers to keep all station articles, as this is a consistent approach allowing readers to make the most use of succession templates, categories, and coordinates (including the "nearby" feature). Arguing about the notability of the thousands of station articles currently on Wikipedia would be a waste of editor time. NemesisAT (talk) 09:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete fails notability guidelines. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Was built during the French colonial period, so I'm trying to find sources from then... Vietnam is still communist, so you won't find much in the press that isn't state-controlled. I can find a few funding annoucements,, at least discussing the station. Searching for "Ga Ninh Hòa" brings up many hits, some travel resources. more of a propaganda piece, some information about the station. Again it's all govt-controlled media. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Good work. There certainly is no need for independent sources for railway station articles, otherwise we'd have to delete most Chinese station articles. NemesisAT (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - skeptical if the sources provided at the time of writing are independent of the subject. XtraJovial (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You won't find any, the gov't of Vietnam controls the press and owns the railway/station. Silly communism. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to North–South railway (Vietnam) as WP:ATD, with no prejudice to restoring when more citable information is found to make a Start-quality article. Jumpytoo Talk 19:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Overall, keeping (in this form or one of the others suggested) this article improves Wikipedia in my opinion. MaxnaCarter (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very longstanding consensus is that all railway stations are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, merge to North–South railway (Vietnam) as suggested by or redirect to the trainline this station is on - a few things to note here.
 * 1) The first step is to assess notability. I do think this guideline has been met, albeit weakly. We need to use some common sense here - the article is brand new, and it is about a train station in Vietnam, with their lower freedom of press there will be fewer sources. The few there do demonstrate the subject has been covered by different sources, and I find them reliable as the coverage is objective and appears grounded in fact.
 * 2) We then need to turn to WP:RAILOUTCOMES, noting that this is an essay and not a guideline. However I am persuaded by the statement about sufficient attributable information needing to exist for a comprehensive article. During the time this article has been nominated, it has not been expanded further, but it is also quite new. The station is on a metro railway line and I do not think the article is comprehensive. As redirects are cheap, and the article does in my view meet WP:VERIFY, redirect it to an appropriate train line or if that line does not exist then keep. Basic train stations in other countries, such as Australia, often will get more coverage than those in countries with a more free and active press, particularly from small local newspapers. Virtually every single train station in Melbourne and Sydney has its own article, and we risk only including articles from western countries with lots of press if we delete articles like this one, where due to limits on press, there may not be opportunity for additional coverage, so common sense says it should stay.


 * 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.