Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meilong railway 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. I don't feel great about closing an AFD discussion for an article with a single source of unknown quality but that's the consensus here. If Merge or Redirection is an appropriate solution, please start a discussion on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meilong railway 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)

Because this article does not contain a single citation, the verifiability of this article does not. and Notability (geographic features) is insufficient, and the description of the Meilong Railway Station in the article is outdated, as the station has been canceled and rebuilt into a new station called Shanghai South Railway Station. This is a violation of Wikipedia's article on Notability (geographic features), and I suggest that it be deleted to avoid misleading others. CHENG SHIYI (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Stations. CHENG SHIYI (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. The article does now contain a citation, but regardless deletion is not the right answer here. Either it's notable enough for it's own article or it should be merged to an appropriate article (likely the line, system or its successor). It is almost certain that most sources about this station will be in Chinese, so someone who reads that language needs to be consulted to determine what the sourcing situation actually is. Thryduulf (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several sources in Baidu Baike version (Mainland China's version of Wikipedia) of this article: [1] Jumpytoo Talk 22:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Using the

WP:OUTDATED argument, which is generally not a very valid argument for deletion. S5A-0043^Talk 13:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. Satisfies
WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:28, 15 April 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.