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.
Neither source cited mentions a station with this name. Source 2 is also deprecated generally unreliable per
WP:AOPLACES. I could not find other sources online. Please redirect this page to
Line 1, Ho Chi Minh City Metro.
Toadspike (
talk) 10:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
1. A reminder that train stations are not presumed notable simply because they exist (see
WP:NTRAINSTATION)
You are correct, my apologies. I didn't find out exactly which one the red symbol meant before publishing that comment.
Toadspike (
talk) 08:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 21:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any further thoughts? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 09:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep' the station has been built, will soft open in July with full service in Q4 2024. I've added a link to support that. @
Crcolas added a number of links to Vietnam news sites before me. With greater than two significant sources, should be an easy pass for GNG.
Oblivy (
talk) 12:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for pointing out the addition of more sources. However, I stand by my nomination. The only source with
significant coverage is this one.
[1] The rest simply name the station once among a list of all stations on the line, which is not significant coverage, and simply reinforces the point that this should be redirected to the metro line's article.
Toadspike[Talk] 10:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
My understanding is that there is no fixed number of sources required for GNG, and there's nothing in
WP:GEOLAND that overrides that. Your deletion rationale was no sources, but now we have an article that is
WP:SIGCOV. Is that not enough?
Oblivy (
talk) 11:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
You conveniently left off the second part of the sentence at
WP:N, which states but multiple sources are generally expected.Trainsandotherthings (
talk) 12:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I was responding to the suggestion that one wasn't sufficient, no intention to mislead. Note that there are more sources, but only one talks significantly about the subject and the rest are about the train line as a whole.
Oblivy (
talk) 13:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The
GNG says "significant coverage in reliable sources", not "a reliable source". You acknowledge that only one source has sigcov. To me that makes it very clear that this subject is not notable.
Toadspike[Talk] 12:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Also,
GEOLAND only applies to populated places. Farther down that page is
NTRAINSTATION, which clarifies that stations have no inherent notability and the GNG applies. (Or another SNG, but none apply to this station.)
Toadspike[Talk] 12:15, 24 May 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.