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 3 (Hanoi Metro). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cầu Diễn station[edit]

Cầu Diễn 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)

Zero sources to meet the GNG. The source cited doesn't mention this station. The only others I could find list it as one among several stations [1][2] and say nothing more. No significant coverage. Toadspike [Talk] 15:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please redirect this to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro). Toadspike [Talk] 15:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and Vietnam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the position data, etc. to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) and redirect there if sources cannot be found (they're most likely to be in Vietnamese, so do check in that language). There is no reason to delete the information present in the article which will be useful if it is expanded in future. Thryduulf (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge there isn't enough coverage (or content) for a separate article from Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) yet, but there might be in the future. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added some references from the corresponding article in Vietnamese. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. All these metro station articles can be expanded (and their references improved) using the information already present in the corresponding articles in Vietnamese and other languages. Reviewing relevant articles in other languages is an important part of WP:BEFORE. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Per my talk page: I checked the Vietnamese Wikipedia articles for most of these nominations and their sourcing was no better. In this example, there is a map from Hanoi Metro [3], which isn't an independent source and has no information to boot, and this source [4], which doesn't mention the station at all.

  Source review on enwiki: Four sources never mention this station [5][6][7][8] (yes, I even watched the full 56-second video). There is also an article which lists the names of eight stations but says nothing more about this station [9].

  I assume good faith when people say sources exist somewhere, but in this case there are even fewer sources there and none are useful for notability. I do not appreciate the casting of aspersions about my BEFORE checks. Toadspike [Talk] 06:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll go further than Toadspike. You are completely out of line, Eastmain. You make a habit of dumping any source you find online and then saying keep without actually reading them, and have an idea of what constitutes significant coverage that is utterly out of line with community consensus. Your AfD match rate is below 60%, while Toadspike is at nearly 90%. If anyone needs to improve their behavior at AfD, it is you (I'm at 83%, if you're wondering). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Appears to have sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. Metro stations that have tens of thousands of riders annually are almost always notable. Bearian (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to object to the claim that WP:HEY applies. The article has 5 sources for one sentence of prose content, and as Toadspike notes, there isn't coverage there. In fact, none of them even show the station is open, much less has "tens of thousands of riders". There is no improvement that suggests any outcome other than a redirect should happen. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Train stations are not automatically notable per community consensus. Please stop repeating this debunked claim. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still divided between Keep and Merge/Redirect. Rather than close as No Consensus, I'm relisting once more.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per the clear failure of any of the supposed sources to actually demonstrate any substantial coverage of this station. The invocation of HEY is ridiculous as the article is still exactly one sentence, to the point that vote should be ignored. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2024 (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.