Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xiaobailou station

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. The consensus is clear to keep this article. Few sources have been shared and other exists in Chinese specifically per the discussion. Their inclusion does not affect any policy and provides further information which adds to WP:GNG. That was the consensus in short. For addition of sources here, kudos to Iiii I I I and Jumpytoo. (non-admin closure) HilssaMansen19 (talk) 09:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xiaobailou 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)

Doesn't satisfy WP:N and the only source is WP:PRIMARY DankPedia (talk) 05:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. DankPedia (talk) 05:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Line 1 (Tianjin Metro) as the line serving the station, as a WP:ATD-R. S5A-0043🚎^{(Leave a message here)} 08:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – WP:PRIMARY says that a primary source may be used ... to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts. The date the station was opened qualifies as straightforward.
I also found several sources online that cover Xiaobailou Station: this in-depth one that describes how the station is integrated into a large belowground commercial shopping district, this one from zhwiki that says it was part of a pilot program for line transfer discounts, and these two that say the station is in the top three/four of the Tianjin Metro in terms of passenger traffic. Iiii I I I (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Add them DankPedia (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not required per WP:NEXISTS. MarioGom (talk) 08:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using an imperative sentence here that commands another editor to add sources is very disrespectful, especially when you continue to support deletion. Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article explains why this argument for deletion is not policy-based. Cunard (talk) 07:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having a shopping center doesn't make the station notable. The China Economic Times is not a RS. The other sources you gave were passing mentions or not notable. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why China Economic Times is not a RS? It seems to be a proper newspaper. Jumpytoo Talk 00:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NTRAINSTATION says "train stations have no inherent notability and are not presumed notable for simply being train stations." I believe this applies to metro stations as well. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Itzcuauhtli11: That's fair. They have no inherent notability. But is this one notable? What's your assessment of existing Chinese sources? MarioGom (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was only able to find sources about the Xiaobailou Music Square and the Xiaobailou Commercial Street, served by this station. Not anything notable about the station itself (historical importance, artwork inside the station, accidents or other events in the station, etc.) — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is an invalid deletion nomination per WP:NEXISTS. MarioGom (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When doing my Wikipedia:Before I could not find any Wikipedia:RS. No such sources exist DankPedia (talk) 02:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese sources do exist, and some have been posted above, including one from a Tianjin newspaper. The question is whether existing sources do meet notability criteria. Saying that reliable sources do not exist when it's already proven false does not help. MarioGom (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources do not meet WP:GNG and WP:NTRAINSTATION applies here DankPedia (talk) 03:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Iiii's first source and these two scholarly sources I found make it pass the GNG line.

Tong, Ruipeng; and Tan, Zhaoyan (2015-04-03). "A risk-based approach for crowd evacuation performance evaluation under metro fire". Georisk: Assessment and Management of Risk for Engineered Systems and Geohazards. 9 (2): 75–95. doi:10.1080/17499518.2015.1030680. ISSN 1749-9518. {{cite journal}}: |first2= missing |last2= (help); |first3= missing |last3= (help); |first4= missing |last4= (help); |first5= missing |last5= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
"城市轨道交通站点周边商业环境特征与评价——以天津市为例" (PDF). 地域研究与开发. 2014 (5): 72–76. 2014-10-01.

Jumpytoo Talk 00:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first paper is about "crowd evacuation performance evaluation under metro fire". It says that for the study the Xiaobailou station was chosen for its proximity to shopping malls and Tianjin Concert Hall, high passenger flow and higher fire risk. Nothing notable about the metro station itself.

The second paper discusses commercial environments surrounding 6 different metro stations in Taijin. It's not about Xiaobailou Station itself and barely talks about it.

None of these sources contribute to the notability to the station. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A full independent scholarly article evaluating the stations fire safety/risks in your opinion does not contribute to SIGCOV/GNG? GNG only requires that there are multiple reliable sources providing non-trivial coverage of the station, which there are. The fact that multiple sources decided "Xiaobailou station is significant enough for me to use as the basis of my study" is the strong sign of notability that is used here. Jumpytoo Talk 16:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This station has higher fires risks than others. I don't believe that issue alone is enough to merit its own article. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded DankPedia (talk) 03:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article provides significant coverage about Xiaobailou station through evaluating its fire safety risks. This is encyclopedic information. There is nothing in the text of Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline to exclude sources that cover aspects of a subject that editors consider unimportant. Cunard (talk) 07:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources above found by Iiii I I I and Jumpytoo. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The sources found by Iiii I I I and Jumpytoo demonstrate that Xiaobailou station meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 07:08, 19 May 2025 (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.