Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Si Bearing MRT station

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. and there is support for a larger discussion of this and related subjects on an appropriate talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Si Bearing MRT station

[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)

This is one of a vast string of uninformative articles about stops on the Bangkok MRT system. I cannot see how any of these are notable- altho since my Thai is nonexistant I have not checked the sources. I changed all those I Came across to redirects to MRT (Bangkok) , but all these edits have been reverted, with the misleading edit summary 'fixing spam' Seeving a wider consensus...I'd bundle them all together, but things tend to go horribly wrong when I attempt this.TheLongTone (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Thailand. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, isn’t checking sources the number one thing to do before nominating for deletion? WP:BEFORE and all that. I don’t see how the article is “uninformative”. Garuda3 (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per sources here. Clearly BEFORE hasn't been done. –Davey2010^Talk 16:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- All of those news items are mere passing mentions where it's listed as one of the stations on the Yellow Line, without any in-depth coverage of specific stations. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've long been of the opinion that these run-off-the-mill station stubs are redundant clutter and the reader will be better served by redirecting them to the line article (which in this case should have been Yellow Line (Bangkok) rather than the MRT article). But this is a contentious issue, and more of an editorial question than one for AfD. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With regards to deletion of an MRT station article, I feel its notability is significant. If we were to view this suggestion from another point, would it then not be fitting to delete all other articles on MRT/BTS or rapid transit stations and indeed not only for Bangkok's but for all other systems even outside Thailand? (KL, Singapore, Jakarta to name a few). Wikipedia is a community-driven encyclopedia by which, I hope, everyone can expand, especially on topics such as this that after all is informative and would prove useful.Sastravuth1786 (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most probably. Out of interest I've had a look at a couple of articles about the London underground. Golders Green tube station looks deletion worthy; all the cites come from London Transport and the article basically tells you when it was built and where it is. Could be included in an article on the Northern Line. And I'm not even sure about Brent Cross tube station, although it probably scrapes by since it is a Grade 2 listed building (Likewise Tooting Bec). (I'm very dubious about the inherent notability of Grade 2 buildings, which is why Wikipedia does not have an article on my last home. The only article I came across was Highgate tube station, which has in interesting history.TheLongTone (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yellow Line (Bangkok). The news sources I found regarding the station in this search only mention the station in passing, while other results consisted of property listings, maps and forum threads. As of now, the station just isn't notable enough for a standalone article, and coverage in the line article is sufficient, but I believe it would be a valid search term. R22-3877 (talk) 03:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comment Please note that I am not argueing that the MRT system is not notable, merely that there is no presumption that individual stations are noteworthy. I would also point out that none of the articles I redirected contained any real content, simply the location and number of platforms. I would also urge those 'voting' keep to read WP:OTHERSTUFF; the fact that other similar articles exist is an argument for their deletion rather than the inclusion of the similar article TheLongTone (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is a unwritten convention that open metro stops get their own articles. Even on very large systems. Every London Underground station, every New York City subway station, every Paris Metro station, every Shanghai Metro station, every Beijing Subway station etc has an article. A metro stop is inherently more notable and permanent than say a bus stop. And there are sufficient transport geeks like myself around the world who like to keep these kind of transport articles up to date. I don't think it is worth Wikipedia:Opening up a can of worms over this. Matthewmayer (talk) 09:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point of an article- like those under discussion here and several of th eLondon Underground articles- which contain absolutely zero content Its a station, it has platforms, trains stop there. D U L dull.TheLongTone (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be shocked if you could get any operating London Underground or British railway station article deleted. Garuda3 (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Rs chen 7754 18:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Per which argument above? Garuda3 and Davey2010's arguments that sources exist have been rebuked, Sastravuth1786 only said WP:other stuff exists, and Matthewmayer's is more an WP:IAR argument than based in any policy. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  ...why does it matter? This comes off as WP:BLUDGEON. Rs chen 7754 05:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  It matters because the point of AfD is to discuss and share opinions on why an article should or should not be deleted. It would better help the closer gauge consensus if participants made their reasoning clear rather than just voting per majority. But if you disagree, no need to reply. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - This has been discussed in great detail at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_65#Request_for_comment_on_train_station_notability and while there's no consensus for a blanket "all stations are notable" rule, in general it seems that mainline rail stations, and extant metro/subway stations, generally always survive AFD nominations. The debate centres more around things like closed request stops, heritage railways, stations on proposed lines etc. Matthewmayer (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Start a proper discussion that covers this and all stations on the Yellow Line, either as a new AfD or a centralised discussion to merge/redirect. This AfD singling out a single station was not the proper venue to address the issue. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the correct place to discuss this would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations) (note this is an essay not a policy, and doesn't really reflect what happens in practice at AfD) - personally I'd be happy to see updated guidelines similar to say https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports) that define certain types of train stations which can be assumed to be notable Matthewmayer (talk) 03:49, 20 June 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.