Zimbro halt: The article says nothing of substance, and neither do the cited sources; this should be redirected to Sabor line .  The author already contested my notability tag, so I am not going to redirect myself as it will surely be contested.  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 14:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Portugal .  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 14:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This station holds the same level of significance as all the stations along the Sabor Line , a fact that cannot be overlooked.  If we were to systematically eliminate smaller stations with limited coverage from every railway line article on Wikipedia, it would lead to chaos.  It's crucial to distinguish between notability and coverage; while this halt may not have garnered extensive coverage, it still serves a meaningful purpose.  Deleting, merging, or redirecting this page would be unwarranted and wouldn’t bring anything positive to the website.  Additionally, it's worth noting that this page is a partial translation of the original Zimbro halt article in Portuguese, which exists since 2014.  V.B.Speranza ( talk ) 10:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've seen ten plus year old hoaxes get deleted.  We held an RfC on train stations which closed with a strong consensus that they must meet GNG.  All keep votes here ignore that in favor of made-up reasons.  Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 15:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Context is not a "made up reason", and while the abstract discussion about stations did indeed state they must meet the GNG every discussion since (that I'm aware of) has formed a consensus that verifiable stations should be blue links.  Either the stations have been determined to meet the GNG, or the content has been merged to an appropriate broader article (if it wasn't there already).  This is entirely predictable given that this is what happened in most deletion discussions before the RFC.  Thryduulf ( talk ) 15:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep pending a broader discussion about all the stations on the line as it doesn't make sense to treat them individually.  Ideally the Sabor Line article would contain a summary of all the stations on the line with individual articles for those where sufficient sourcing exists to sustain them (and at first glance it seems likely that this will be at least most of them).  Deletion is definitely not warranted for any of them though, as they should all be blue links either as individual articles or as redirects to the line article where the content has been merged.  Thryduulf ( talk ) 15:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 21:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 21:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This nomination makes intuitive sense as a halt is a lesser station.  A closer look at the Sabor line , however, reveals that the halts are an intermediate level and some of the halts had a quite elaborate built-up.  The stations of least significance in Portugal are stops.  There is an article on one stop along Sabor line .  It would seem a reasonable AfD target.  In fact, it's the only article on a stop in Portugal.  The stations and halts are best kept as consequential in function and structures and with these sources.  gidonb ( talk ) 00:53, 26 December 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.

Discussion outcome: keep