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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Silian station[edit]

Silian station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable train station. Author contested a previous attempt to redirect the article, so here we are. I found nothing in a basic BEFORE search. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I can't read the language the sources use, but if it just opened in October 2022, I would imagine it would be covered in the media, somewhere.Oaktree b (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep pending a discussion about how to cover all the stations on the line (there is absolutely no reason to treat any station differently to the others that I can see) that has input from editors who can read Chinese. It's inconceivable that there will not be sources about the stations on a new metro line in a city of 17.5 million people. I can't say how detailed the sources are as they are principally in Chinese (as one would expect), so I don't know whether these are best covered on individual pages or merged, but in either case deletion is not warranted. Thryduulf (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd be happy to have a conversation with the article's creator about how best to cover the stations, but they seem more interested in edit warring and yelling than working collaboratively [1] [2] [3]. We can't merge or redirect any of these because this user will just revert everyone. There's tons of these in the NPP queue right now, and all have poor sourcing and no self-respecting NPP reviewer would accept them. When a redirect is contested, the general procedure is to then proceed to AfD. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No, when a redirect is contested the correct procedure is to discuss it on the talk page (or a wikiproject, with pointers). AfD is, as the name clearly spells out, the place to nominate articles you want deleted. Perhaps foolishly I live in hope that you will learn this one day. Thryduulf (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You know very well that a talk page discussion would attract no attention at all. Either you show me the rule that says train stations cannot be redirected or merged individually, or stop wasting my time (hint: there's no rule, you just made it up). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Re: talk page discussions: hence pointers from/to WikiProjects, etc.

  I have never argued that stations cannot be redirected or merged individually (that I made something like up is entirely in your head). I have however repeatedly argued that they almost never should, because it simply doesn't make sense to do that. Where you have a set of items that are part of a notable set (stations being just one example) and which have a broadly identical level of notability (whatever that level is) all items in the set should be discussed as a group and either all should have articles or they should be merged to an article about the set (or some other appropriate location). Thryduulf (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I found several sources with a quick search: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. Some of these cover the station in more detail than others, but together I think they demonstrate notability. I suspect a more thorough search would find more sources too. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in addition to points raised by other users, this is a future interchange station and so it does not make sense to redirect this to a line article, and there is likely to be more coverage in the future as the new lines serving this station are completed. Garuda3 (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sufficient sourcing available to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2022 (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.