Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aengnam 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. While the delete arguments make a persuasive case that we are not required to keep all railway station articles by any means, and that the articles in question are indeed unsourced, there is still no consensus in this discussion to delete. –Darkwind (talk) 06:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aengnam Station

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~Non-notable railway stations.~~ Unsourced since 2009. Sawol (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are defunct stations on Gyeongjeon Line:

Keep. All railway stations are generally considered to be notable. Always have been. Being defunct is utterly irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about unsourced? Sawol (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The trick is to find sources, not delete! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who dose find sources? They have been doing that over recent six years and I suspect they will keep on without reliable sources. Sawol (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Long standing and wise convention is that all rail stations are considered notable. If this project were flesh out the notability of the tens of thousands of stations throughout the world than there would be a gross amount of time and resources spent that would be better used at creating new articles and editing and improving existing ones, not to mention reducing animosity between editors. --Oakshade (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: While all railway stations may be presumed to have notability (as stipulated by WP:NTS and WP:STATION), since none of these articles have no sources whatsoever there is no proof of notability. This nomination explicitly challenges the notability of these articles and it's for those who dissent to come up with sources: "[O]nce an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." (WP:NPOSSIBLE) Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 18:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these stations, with no surprise sources are proven to exist. Most, if not all the sources are in Korean. For example for Wonbuk Station - written as "원북역" - the Korean Wikipedia article lists many sources (mostly from the 1950s and 1960s). It's impossible for stations to be built and used without various government reports, either budgetary or environmental. --Oakshade (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oakshade's reasoning. Mackensen (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there really are sources as Oakshade points out, please add them (as further reading, as I have done at Wonbuk Station, or better yet, as actual sources). So long as they don't appear in any of these articles there is little proof of sources. I hope this is time better spent as Oakshade put it. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 12:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Contrary to what some !voters affirm here above, there is no "long-standing and wise convention" that all train stations are notable. The guideline WP:NTS and the essay WP:STATION require expressly that multiple sources are shown. STATION goes even further, it says: "If no source material, or only directory-type information (location, function, name, address) can be provided, the subject may not merit mention at all." Let alone an article. Kraxler (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, de facto there is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It there is, it runs crash-head-on against both the guideline and the project's own notability essay. I suggest the members of Project Railways either amend their own criteria (and spell out what they're doing) or they drop the convention and abide by their own rules. Kraxler (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the ones I checked (I didn't go through them all) have sourced articles in Ko. I followed Finnusertop's advice to copy the sources from Ko as "further reading", tagging them with the language template. One-sentence stubs that are notable but sources available sources are non-English shouldn't be a problem to be kept simply because English sources are not available.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 23:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 05:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not a valid reason for deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, make a list of defunct stations at the Gyeongjeon Line, and redirect all the titles there. Being unsourced is not in itself a reason to delete the pages, but we really do not need all these 10-word stubs. Stations able to support fully-developed articles can be reinstated on a case-by-case basis. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:17, 8 August 2015 (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.