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. I see a consensus to Keep this article or, at least, a No consensus here. Basically, there is no support for Deletion other than the nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minrui Road station

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I WP:BOLDLY redirected the above articles a few days ago on concerns of notability, however @User:Garuda3 reverted them, with the edit summary quote: "beneficial to have all stations of the system. Multiple references". However, most of the sources talk about the line which they serve, Pujiang line. On a WP:BEFORE search on both Google and Baidu in both English and Chinese, I could not find any significant coverage on the stations themselves, but only minor mentions on articles on the Pujiang line. These stations thus fail WP:NSTATION and WP:GNG, and in my opinion should be redirected to Pujiang line#Stations.

I am also nominating the following pages as well:

S5A-0043^Talk 07:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:S5A-0043, this nomination is not in the correct format for a bundled nomination so it will make a closure, whatever that is, very difficult. You can't just list a group of articles, there is code you must use. Please review WP:AFD and reformat your nomination so that it is done correctly according to the guidelines descripted there. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1979 Sligo Intermediate Football Championship as an example of a correctly formatted bundled nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I’ll get to it later. S5A-0043^Talk 07:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 04:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appear to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all five per sources in the articles, WP:GNG, WP:NEXIST and Necrothesp. gidonb (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’d like to point out once again that most of the sources talk about the line which they serve, Pujiang line, and not of the stations themselves. I checked through and the sources generally contain WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the stations themselves, and no evidence of WP:SIGCOV (part of the criteria of WP:GNG), and also that notability is not WP:INHERENT. I’ll offer a source check in a few hours. S5A-0043^Talk 20:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source check based on WP:GNG:

In the article:

[1] : Can’t open so can’t comment.

[2]: Significant?

(passing mention of Huizhen Road and not even a single mention of everything else) Reliable?

Secondary?

(Primary, Shanghai Keolis is the operator of the line) Independent?

(Same as secondary)

[3]: Not actually archived for some reason so no comment

[4] Significant?

(Passing mentions for all stations). Independent?

Reliable?

(State media but since this isn’t political coverage I think it should still be OK). Secondary?

I grabbed a few extra random sources from Google and Baidu since someone mentioned WP:NEXIST:

[5]: Significant?

(A bunch of images of the stations but not much prose). Independent?

(Sounds promotional but not 100% sure) Reliable?

Secondary?

[6] Significant?

(Passing mentions for all). Independent?

Reliable?

(Via Baidu Baijiahao, a WP:UGC platform, but authored by state media. Like above no.4 since this isn’t political coverage I think it should still be OK). Secondary?

[7] Significant?

(Passing mention of transfer info for each station. BTW this should also be routine coverage.) Independent?

(Authored by Shanghai Metro, system operating organization). Reliable?

Secondary?

Apologies for the mess, I tried using the source assessment table but mobile editing is a headache. But anyway, I honestly doubt these stations meet WP:GNG based on the above.S5A-0043^Talk 20:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple reliable secondary sources. And also per WP:BASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. 213.239.67.134 (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BASIC also says trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. and that a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not (non-trivial coverage). Could you kindly explain why WP:BASIC is satisfied in this case? S5A-0043^Talk 21:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those of us who care about equity tend to be a touch more lenient when it comes to Africa, much of Asia, most of the Caribbean, and other regions with serious deficiencies in quality sources. Out of equity considerations and not replacing the need for quality sources. Just relaxing it slightly. If we wouldn't, such regions would suffer even a larger coverage gap at Wikipedia. In general, there is no need for the nominator to respond to almost every diverging opinion in AfDs. In fact, there is a strong recommendation against that. Please assume that ALL opinionators have read the AfD-rationale and are taking it into full consideration! gidonb (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2023 (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.