- 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 Oulainen. Daniel ( talk) 21:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Oulainen railway station
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Oulainen railway station ( | 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)
- Delete A non-notable railway station. Cannot find any sources demonstrating WP:GNG. Tooncool64 ( talk) 19:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Finland. Shellwood ( talk) 20:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The Finnish article lists a few sources. Of the ones that could have SIGCOV I can access 0 of them so won't hard vote one way or another. Jumpytoo Talk 03:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Weak deleteeasily available sourcing (including from fi.wp) is not useful for notability purposes. The two books mentioned (but not cited) in the fi.wp article might be useful, but I'm not quite convinced they are actually independent: one appears to have been published by the local parish, and the other by the municipality's historical society. In any case, hypothetical sourcing doesn't count. That said, I'll happily reconsider if someone can either identify better sourcing or somehow vouch for the books. - Ljleppan ( talk) 08:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)- Why would those sources not be independent?
Thryduulf (
talk) 11:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Being published by a minor entity with a (presumably) close connection to the location doesn't strike me as the hallmark of independence.
Ljleppan (
talk) 12:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Whether an entity is minor or not is irrelevant to independence. Being located in the same geographical area is irrelevant to independence. What matters is whether they are independent of the subject of the article (the railway station, and by extension the company/organisation the operates it). Thryduulf ( talk) 16:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Being published by a minor entity with a (presumably) close connection to the location doesn't strike me as the hallmark of independence.
Ljleppan (
talk) 12:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Changing my !vote to Weak merge to Oulainen as an WP:ATD - Per my comment below, the Finnish Main Line article seems like a poor merge target content wise, but Oulainen sounds reasonable. - Ljleppan ( talk) 16:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Why would those sources not be independent?
Thryduulf (
talk) 11:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep or merge. If sources can be found demonstrating notability this should be kept, if they can't it should be merged to the article about the line.
Thryduulf (
talk) 11:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed to merging in principle, but I'm not seeing what the merger to
Finnish Main Line would entail in practice. A random subhead for a single sentence of "The Oulainen railway station was opened in 1886" when there is no content about any of the other stations? Merging to
Oulainen sounds much more feasible to me. That, naturally, also assumes that someone locates a source for the year.
Ljleppan (
talk) 13:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that Oulainen would make a better merge target, at least the way Finnish Main Line is currently structured. / Julle ( talk) 10:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed to merging in principle, but I'm not seeing what the merger to
Finnish Main Line would entail in practice. A random subhead for a single sentence of "The Oulainen railway station was opened in 1886" when there is no content about any of the other stations? Merging to
Oulainen sounds much more feasible to me. That, naturally, also assumes that someone locates a source for the year.
Ljleppan (
talk) 13:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, the nomination has not discussed why the sourcing available on Finnish Wikipedia is not sufficient.
Garuda3 (
talk) 11:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- fi.wp ref #1 has three hits in a report about the railway infrastructure by the Finnish Transport Infrastructure Agency. Two of the three mentions are in tables, and one is in a map. I.e. all passing, and the report in general is not independent for notability purposes. Ref #2 is basically the same, with this time a few more hits in tables. Ref #3 is the state railways company page for the station; not independent and very limited information. Nobody is able to confirm the two books listed in the fi.wp further reading section have any meaningful content in them about the station. Ljleppan ( talk) 11:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
DeleteDelete or Merge to Oulainen The sourcing on the finnish site is not sufficient because WP:NBUILD states that train stations are not notable unless they meet WP:GNG. The sourcing is as described above, not meeting WP:NRV James.folsom ( talk) 21:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)- Delete or merge: Fails WP:NBUILD due to lack of significant coverages. Sources on other language are insufficient as they are passing mentions. ARandomName123 ( talk)Ping me! 18:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge validated content and redirect to Oulainen. Doesn't appear to satisfy GNG. While the line the station is on is often a good redirect/merge target, it doesn't seem to be in this case, so I also favour the town. Rupples ( talk) 19:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- 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.