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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Longnan Railway Station[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unresolved notability since 2008. Unverified since early 2013. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Easy to verify [1][2] (gmaps seem to have their text-satellite alignment a little off). The WP community wisely decided a long time ago that all rail stations are considered notable (see WP:OUTCOMES) as it prevents the it from having to tirelessly scrutinize the viability of the tens of thousands of rail station articles when editors time is much better spent improving existing articles or creating new ones as well as improving an amicable working relationship with each other.--Oakshade (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything about stations in WP:OUTCOMES, all WP:RAILOUTCOMES says is that "subway and railway lines often survive AfD" 109.76.249.184 (talk) 10:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has long been considered on Wikipedia that all railway stations are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAILOUTCOMES or WP:RAILSTATION, although such articles on Chinese wiki rarely survive AfD.-180.172.239.231 (talk) 10:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added one reference and there are others out there. The majority of Chinese railway stations are like wallpaper to the people who live there so they are not written about a great deal, other than in timetables and travel guides. The references are all going to be in Chinese, which doesn't disqualify them, per the General Notabiity Guideline—what does matter is that we are not systematically biased against any one demographic group. If we start deleting Chinese railway stations, which have always been presumed notable, albeit borderline, then this must be the first (as Oakshade says) of 10,000s of similar AfD's right across the globe for similar small stations—otherwise we are not applying policy equanaminously. Do we really want to waste thousands of hours of productive editing time on such an exercise? Philg88 ^♦talk 16:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Beijing–Kowloon Railway per Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations). "If no source material, or only directory-type information (location, function, name, address) [about a train station] can be provided, the subject may not merit mention at all" All refs provided by the keep side are purely directory-style infomation. eg. timetables etc, and I haven't found anything better. 109.76.249.184 (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC) — 109.76.249.184 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As I have been accused of being an SPA, I will disclose IPs I've edited under recently (there may be others): 109.77.247.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 109.79.81.156 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 109.77.247.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). These demonstrate activity in AfDs outside of this topic. I expect the tag to be removed. 109.76.249.184 (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So on your 5-day long history on Wikipedia, you've contributed to a total of 4 other topics with various IPs.--Oakshade (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations) is simply an essay an an opinion of a few writers and doesn't represent long-standing community consensus.--Oakshade (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"It may be considered that if enough attributable information exists about a station or railway line to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article." That sounds like inherent notability for me. We have similar expression when we consider notability of named natural features or NRHP listed buildings.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've edited before, since 2010. I have been away from Wikipedia for over a year, I am Editing while logged out for a legitimate reason, and my account is in good standing. My account has not been active in rail topics or rail AfDs. Besides all of this, the IP contribs I have linked show activity in a diverse range of AfDs, therefore lacking the "single" part of "single-purpose account". I'm going to ask you again to remove the tag.

Sorry, just four other topics is on the cusp of "few". If you've been editing since 2010, what is your user name?--Oakshade (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to reveal that except to a trusted admin or checkuser via email. Linking a username with an IP is risky. If you want, you can nominate an admin who we both can trust, and they can verify what I said. 109.76.249.184 (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that page is an essay, but I don't see policy or guidelines supporting your point of view. I happen to be of the opinion that that page is more representative of my views on WP:N than, say, WP:RAILSTATION (also an essay).109.76.249.184 (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Community WP:CONSENSUS (long-standing at that) and WP:COMMONSENSE which trumps that essay.--Oakshade (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Community consensus set down where? Where is the RfC or other discussion where that consensus was decided? 109.76.249.184 (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Transportation/archive Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes/Archive_2#Transportation--180.172.239.231 (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Community consensus is set down by a decade of the community not deleting rail station articles. You don't need an RfC to show consensus is established. The main determination of WP:CONSENSUS is through regular editing. In this case, the regular editing over a decade with perhaps hundreds of rail station AfDs and every time the community decided to keep them. That's a true gauge of consensus. Even the AfD example in that discussion you pointed to, the community decided to keep that rail station article. It's a very wise decision. Otherwise there will be literally thousands of discussions like this. The community doesn't want that. --Oakshade (talk) 03:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, we're here to build an encyclopedia. Spending otherwise productive editing time on interminable AfDs is both unnecessary and potentially soul-destroying. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus like that needs to be disputed once in a while, otherwise what we end up with is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I don't think were achieving a whole lot with this discussion, I think GNG should apply here, you guys think stations are inherently notable, can we leave it there? 109.76.98.47 (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I wasn't able to find a lot of coverage (there's an obvious language barrier) but the OUTCOMES arguments are convincing. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.