Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xingke Avenue 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 merge to Line 9 (Chongqing Rail Transit). 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.  Sandstein  20:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Xingke Avenue station

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

Reviewed under new page patrol. One of many non-notable stations on a large train line. No indication of wp:notability under SNG or GNG, nor of a hope for expansion. I merged it into the train line article and was reverted. North8000 (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Line 9 (Chongqing Rail Transit). Don't see any reason for a standalone page, per WP:NOPAGE. The article is all of 3 sentences. Should be simple enough to convert the information into a table on the article for Line 9, and other stations on the line with articles in a similar state (like Qinggangping station) can likewise be merged. Those who want to keep all train stations shouldn't have an objection as we aren't deleting information from the encyclopedia in doing this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Listify In terms of sources, I only found this. But, redirecting/merging a single railway station article into the line article and leaving everything else cause navigational issues, especially because this is a terminal station. The best option is to listify (style I'm thinking of is similar to List of state routes in Nevada shorter than one mile), but this needs to be done at a line level, to decide which stations to put in the list and which deserve their own articles. This could be solved in this AfD, but I feel its better to make a WP:MERGEPROP on the line article to fully discuss this. Jumpytoo Talk 22:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * IMO they are not mutually exclusive and both worth doing. A decision here would indicate outlook for existing as a separate article and your (tougher to et done) idea would be a bigger fix.  North8000 (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I see this somewhat commonly at NPP. An individual starts making a permastub article for every station on a train line.  North8000 (talk) 00:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This article covers the station in detail. NemesisAT (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking for sources. I can't speak to the reliability of that source, but assuming it is reliable, that could count for one example of significant coverage. We need multiple. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't believe we need multiple and there is no consensus that we need more than one (if you see the conversation at Wikipedia talk:Notability). A railway station isn't exactly a controversial topic where we need differing viewpoints to remain neutral. NemesisAT (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is longstanding consensus that all railway stations are notable. This includes rapid transit stations that are full stations as opposed to just tram stops. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Where is "all rail stations are notable" from? We're supposed to be implementing guidelines here. North8000 (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand AfD then. It also works on WP:CONSENSUS (a policy, incidentally), as illustrated by WP:RAILOUTCOMES. As I have pointed out numerous times, if whether we kept articles or not was only down to the implementation of "rules" then we wouldn't have AfDs at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * AFD is where we (using the wp:consensus process) decide whether or not, based on applicable policies and guidelines it can exist and as a separate article. I'm not against bending the rules or working the borderline when there's a reason.  But mass generation of a separate inevitable permastub article for every railroad station on a line isn't what I'd call such a reason, particularly where it clearly fails both GNG and SNG. North8000 (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Bottom line, if you want there to be a policy or guideline stating all railway stations are inherently notable, be my guest and go to the village pump and propose it. And if that becomes the case, I will respect it. But you need to recognize no such policy or guideline exists right now, and that other editors will not be constrained by your arguments of "keep it because we always keep these" when you can't point to any policies or guidelines (besides a misapplication of consensus, because as you have already been reminded, consensus can change). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * How does the presence of an article constrain you? If you don't like it, don't read or edit it. NemesisAT (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You can find more on my philosophy here at and . Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  This AfD discussion has been proposed for merger to Line 9 (Chongqing Rail Transit),,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to on 22 June 2022. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from.


 * Merge per Trainsandotherthings. Regarding the long-standing consensus that all stations are notable, consensus can change. Given the number of recent AfDs for minor station stubs, as well as how old the consensus is, I can't see why it shouldn't. It's becoming clearer and clearer that not all stations are notable enough to warrant standalone articles. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 16:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I love the "consensus can change" argument. Yes it can. But please point us to proof that it has done in this case. I don't think you'll be able to. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Very good chance I misunderstood this, but if you want me to cite a few AfDs...
 * Articles for deletion/Valavanur railway station (nominator cited WP:GNG) and corresponding deletion review
 * Articles for deletion/Ninh Hòa station (nominator cited WP:STATION)
 * Granted, both of them were closed with a keep consensus, but a lot of the non-keep !votes are definitely food for thought. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 03:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly. They were kept. So consensus has not changed! There is a very clear difference between "consensus has changed" and "I would like consensus to have changed because I don't agree with it"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge per Trainsandotherthings. No prejudice against re-creating this if and when someone wants to develop this into a more sizable article. As it is, we don't need a WP:Content Fork until there is something more substantial than this.4meter4 (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per long-standing consensus that all rail stations are notable, see WP:RAILOUTCOMES. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 28 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 postsa, 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) 16:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @ I agree, but unfortunately Articles for deletion/Common outcomes is often effective at shutting down discourse based in notability policy. It often takes an WP:RFC ruling to overturn these precedences and the way they are used at AFD. Some examples of this would be WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and WP:BCASTOUTCOMES which have been altered to align with policy after RFCs. I would suggest that a similar RFC is needed to review WP:RAILOUTCOMES.4meter4 (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. But per my even WP:RAILOUTCOMES as-is triply isn't what people have been saying it is. North8000</b> (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.